Annual Portfolio Performance Report 2012 - 2013

Latin America and the Caribbean Division

Annual Portfolio Performance Report 2012 - 2013

Volume I - Main report and appendices



iii

VOLUME I: Main Report

Table of contents

Abbreviations and acronyms vi

Project identification numbers and acronyms vii

Glossary x

Map of Latin America and the Caribbean Region xiii

Executive Summary xv

I. Overview of the economic and social situation 1

Economic outlook 1 A.

Social outlook 2 B.

The rural sector 3 C.

The progress and challenges in LAC rural development 4 D.

II. Country programmes 6

RB-COSOPs presented to the EB 6 A.

Country programme issues 7 B.

III. Current investment portfolio and operations 9

Characteristics 9 A.

Operations 13 B.

IV. Current grant portfolio and operations 18

Characteristics 18 A.

Grant implementation performance 22 B.

Linkages to the investment portfolio and knowledge management 22 C.

Lessons learned 22 D.

V. Management performance of on-going portfolio 24

Project management 24 A.

Disbursement performance 25 B.

Counterpart funding 27 C.

Financial management 27 D.

Loan administration 28 E.

Procurement 30 F.

Compliance with financing covenants 31 G.

Audit 31 H.

Monitoring and evaluation 32 I.

VI. Results of the on-going portfolio 34

Overall implementation progress 34 A.

Outputs and outcomes 35 B.

Targeting, poverty and gender 38 C.

Innovation, learning, knowledge management, replication and scaling-up 39 D.

Sustainability 40 E.

VII. Evaluation and self-assessment 42



iv

VIII. Portfolio management 44

Supervision and implementation support 44 A.

Risks 45 B.

Portfolio at risk 46 C.

Problem Patterns 49 D.

Proactivity and reduced risk 50 E.

IX. Conclusions and the way forward 52

List of Figures

Chart I - Average IFAD financing per project (on-going portfolio) 9

Chart II - Current portfolio by financing sources 10

Chart III - IFAD financing by lending terms (current portfolio): 2000-2013 11

Chart IV - Grants approved in 2011-2013 by thematic areas 20

Chart V - Disbursement by sub-region 2008-2012 25

Chart VI - Areas of relative low performance (2011-2013) 49

List of Tables

Table I - LAC and IFAD overall current portfolio 2000 – 2012 (IFAD financing) 9

Table II - Variation of current portfolio financing structure 2011-2013 (US$m) 10

Table III - IFAD financing approved by lending terms 11

Table IV - Current portfolio co-financing ratio 12

Table V - Financing approved during the review period 13

Table VI - Financing agreements that became effective during the review period 14

Table VII - Financing agreements signed during the review period 14

Table VIII - Financing agreements not signed or signed and not effective: June 2013 15

Table IX - Age structure of current portfolio 15

Table X - Projects completed during the review period 16

Table XI - Investment projects extended during the review period 16

Table XII - Cancellations during the review period 16

Table XIII - Current and on-going grant portfolio 30 June 2010-2013 18

Table XIV - IFAD financed on-going grants 30 June 2010-2013 18

Table XV - Maturity of current IFAD-financed grant portfolio June 2012-2013 19

Table XVI - Disbursement performance of slow disbursing projects 26

Table XVII - Current IFAD financed portfolio: approved not disbursing projects 27

Table XVIII - Financial management risk ratings - 2012-2013 28

Table XIX - Withdrawal application processing data by review period 29

Table XX - Ratings of outputs and outcomes 2012-2013 38

Table XXI - Reduced risk index 2012-2013 51

Appendices

Table 1 : RB-COSOP programme: June 2013 1

Table 2: Current investment Portfolio: June 2013 2

Table 3: Current investment portfolio - IFAD financing by sub-region: 2011 – 2013 3

Table 4: Current investment portfolio - IFAD financing by impact domain and sub-region: 2009–2013 3

Table 5: Current investment portfolio: 2000 – 2013 4

Table 6: GEF financing: June 2013 6

Table 7: Current investment portfolio by type of co-financier and sub-region (US$'000): June 2013 7

Table 8: Current investment portfolio - co-financing ratio by country: June 2013 8



v

Table 9: Approved IFAD and STF financing: 2010 - 2012 PBAS period (US$'000) 9

Table 10: New investment projects that became effective: 2008 – 2012 10

Table 11: IFAD financing agreements signed for new investment projects: 2008-2012 11

Table 12: Delays in signing and effectiveness - IFAD financing agreements: 2009–2013 12

Table 13: IFAD financing agreements not signed more than two months after approval: June 2013 13

Table 14: Investment projects completed during the review period: 2008 – 2013 14

Table 15: Time overrun of investment projects: June 2013 15

Table 16: Project extensions: 2012 – 2013 16

Table 17: Current grant portfolio: June 2013 17

Table 18: Maturity of current grant portfolio: 2012–2013 review period 18

Table 19: On-going grant portfolio by grant policy output: June 2013 19

Table 20: Grant financing approved: 2012–2013 review period 20

Table 21: Grants that became effective: 2012-13 review period 20

Table 22: Grant disbursement rates: 30 June 2013 21

Table 23: Grant completed: 2012-2013 review period 22

Table 24: Grants closed or cancelled: 2012-2013 review period 22

Table 25: Grants with overdue closing dates: June 2013 23

Table 26: GSR ratings of grant projects: June 2013 24

Table 27: PSR ratings of investment projects: June 2013 25

Table 28: Disbursement performance of investment projects - IFAD financing: June 2013 26

Table 29: Loans and DSF grants with disbursement lag of 40% or more: June 2013 30

Table 30: Withdrawal application processing by country: 2009-2013 31

Table 31: Project SOE thresholds: June 2013 32

Table 32: Status of receipt of audit reports due for FY ended in 2008-2012 33

Table 33: Status of 2012 project RIMS reporting delivery: June 2013 34

Table 34: Status of 2012 project RIMS reporting delivery: June 2013 35

Table 35: PSR aggregate ratings of investment portfolio: June 2013 36

Table 36: Results Management Framework country ratings: 2012 - 2013 38

Table 37: Project output ratings by impact domain: 2012 – 2013 40

Table 38: Direct supervision and implementation support missions: 2012 – 2013 41

Table 39: Risk matrix: June 2013 43

Table 40: Summary indicators of investment projects: June 2013 44

Table 41: Investment projects at risk: 2004 - 2013 45

Table 42: Action plan for improving investment Portfolio Performance: June 2013 46

Table 43: Action plan for improving grant portfolio performance: June 2013 58

VOLUME II: Annexes

Part A: Country Programme Reports

Part B: Bolivia - COSOP Review Report

Part C: Regional Grants



vi

Abbreviations and acronyms AAA Agro Action Allemande AECID Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo AND Andean sub-region AWPB Annual Work Programme and Budget ARTS Audit Reports Tracking System CFS Controller’s and Financial Services Division CAMC Mexico, Central America and Caribbean (sub-region) CDB Caribbean Development Bank CAF Development Bank of Latin America (formerly Corporacion Andina de Fomento) CI Cooperating Institution COSOP Country Strategic Opportunities Programme CPIS Country Programme Issues Sheet CPM Country Programme Manager CPMT Country Programme Management Team DHC DSF and HC blend lending terms DO Development Objective DS Direct supervision DSF Debt Sustainability Framework ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FLM Flexible Lending Mechanism FM Financial Management FY Financial Year G Grant GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GSR Grant Status Report HC Highly concessional lending terms I Intermediary lending terms IDB Inter-American Development Bank IEPS Instituto de Estudios Peruanos IICA Instituto Inter-Americano de Cooperación Agrícola IMF International Monetary Fund IP Implementation Progress LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LGS Loans and Grant System MCA Millenium Challenge Account MCAC Mexico, Central America and Caribbean sub-region M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIC Middle Income Country MTR Mid-term Review O Ordinary lending terms PBAS Performance Based Allocation System PCR Project Completion Report PCRV Project Completion Report Validation PD Programme Management Department PDP Project Disbursement profile PMU Project Management Unit PPMS Project and Portfolio Management System PSR Project Status Report PY Project Year QA Quality Assurance QE Quality Enhancement REAF Reunión Especializada de Agricultura Familiar RMF Results Management Framework RIMS Results and Impact Management System SC Southern Cone sub-region SOE Certified Statement of Expenditure STF Spanish Trust Fund TAG Technical Assistance Grant TOR Terms of Reference UCAR Unidad para el Cambio Rural (Argentina) UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNOPS United Nations Office of Project Services WA Withdrawal Application WB The World Bank



vii

Project identification numbers and acronyms

Country Project

ID Loan Grant Acronym Project title

ANDEAN sub-region

Bolivia 1298 714-BO VALE Enhancement of the Peasant Camelid Economy Support Project

Bolivia 1490 800-BO PLAN VIDA Plan VIDA-PEEP to Eradicate Extreme Poverty - Phase I

Bolivia 1598 858-BO 7-BO

ACCESOS Economic Inclusion Programme for Families and Rural Communities in the Territory of the Plurinational State of Bolivia

Colombia 1294 702-CO OPORTUNIDADES Rural Microenterprise Assets Programme: Capitalization, Technical Assistance and Investment Support

Colombia 1491 871-CO 10-CO

TOP Building Rural Entrepreneurial Capacities Programme: Trust and Opportunity

Ecuador 1297 650-EC 804 CORREDOR CENTRAL

Development of the Central Corridor Project

Ecuador 1354 789-EC 804-EC

21 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO

Ibarra-San Lorenzo Development Project

Ecuador 1588 849-EC 5-EC

BUEN VIVIR RURAL

Buen Vivir in Rural Territories Development Project

Peru 1240 602-PE 799-PE

1158 SIERRA SUR Market Strengthening and Livelihood Diversification in the Southern Highlands Project

Peru 1352 744-PE 22 SIERRA NORTE Project for Strengthening Assets, Markets and Rural Development Policies in the Northern Highlands

Peru 1498 884-PE SIERRA Y SELVA ALTA

Strengthening Local Development in the Highlands and High Rainforest Areas Project

Venezuela 1252 627-VE 23 PROSALAFA II Sustainable Rural Development Project for the Semi-Arid Zones of Falcon and Lara States Phase II

Venezuela 1404 771-VE WARAO Orinoco Delta Warao Support Programme

Venezuela 1609 886-VE PROSANESU Integrated and Sustainable Development Project for the Arid Zones in the States of Nueva Esparte and Sucre

Mexico, Central America and Caribbean sub-region

Belize

1456 769-BZ RFP Rural Finance Programme

Dominican Republic

1479 780-DO 1-DO

PRORURAL OESTE

Development Project for Rural Poor Economic Organizations of the Border Region

Dominican Republic

1533 811-DO PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE

Rural Economic Development Project in the Central and Eastern Provinces

El Salvador 1215 579-SV PREMODER Reconstruction and Rural Modernization Programme

El Salvador 1321 666-SV 784 PRODEMORO Rural Development and Modernization Project for the Eastern Region

El Salvador 1416 728-SV 6-SV

PRODEMOR-CENTRAL

Rural Development and Modernization Project for the Central and Paracentral Regions

El Salvador 1568 828-SV AMANECER RURAL

Rural Territorial Competitiveness Programme

Grenada 1569 819-GD MAREP Market Access and Rural Enterprise Development Programme



viii

Country Project


Guatemala 1085 518-GT PRODEVER Rural Development Programme for Las Verapaces

Guatemala 1274 614-GT OCCIDENTE National Rural Development Programme Phase I: the Western Region

Guatemala 1317 651-GT ORIENTE National Rural Development Programme: Central and Eastern Regions

Guatemala 1473 770-GT 1070 PRODENORTE Sustainable Rural Development Programme for the Northern Region

Guatemala 1519 812-GT QUICHÉ Sustainable Rural Development Programme in El Quiché

Guyana 1415 742-GY 8015 READ Rural Enterprise and Agricultural Development Project

Haiti 1171 587-HT 8096 PAIP Productive Initiatives Support Programme in Rural Areas

Haiti 1275 715-HT 8041 PPI 2 Small-scale Irrigation Development Project

Haiti 1532 8103 PPI 3 Small Irrigation and Market Access Development Project in the Nippes and Goavienne Region

Honduras 1407 759-HN PROMECOM Project for Enhancing the Rural Economic Competitiveness of Yoro

Honduras 1535 816-HN EMPRENDE SUR Sustainable Rural Development Programme for the Southern Region

Honduras 1595 839-HN HORIZONTES DEL NORTE

Northern Horizons-Competitiveness and Sustainable Rural Development Project in the Northern Zone

Mexico 1349 674-MX PRODESNOS Sustainable Development Project for Rural and Indigenous Communities of the Semi-Arid North-West

Mexico 1412 790-MX 28 DECOFOS Community-based Forestry Development Project in Southern States (Campeche, Chiapas and Oaxaca)

Mexico 1597 872-MX 11-MX

LAS MIXTECAS Rural Development Project in the Mixteca Region and the Mazahua Zone

Nicaragua 1120 529-NI FAT Technical Assistance Fund Programme for the Departments of León, Chinandega and Managua

Nicaragua 1380 760-NI 863-NI

8009 8097

PROCAVAL Value Chain and Market Access Project for Small-scale Producers

Nicaragua 1505 830-NI 8071 NICARIBE Agricultural, Fishery and Forestry Productive Systems Development Programme in RAAN and RAAS Indigenous Territories

Panama 1199 580-PA NGOBE-BUGLE Sustainable Rural Development Project for the Ngöbe-Buglé Territory and Adjoining Districts

Panama 1389 750-PA 24 PARTICIPA Participative Development and Rural Modernization Project



ix

Country Project


Southern Cone sub-region

Argentina 1098 514-AR PRODERNOA North Western Rural Development Project

Argentina 1279 648-AR PRODERPA Patagonia Rural Development Project

Argentina 1364 713-AR PRODEAR Rural Areas Development Programme

Argentina 1610 848-AR 4-AR

PRODERI Inclusive Rural Development Programme

Brazil 1101 494-BR 2 DOM HELDER CAMARA

Sustainable Development Project for Agrarian Reform Settlements in the Semi-Arid North-East

Brazil 1335 696-BR 850 GENTE DE VALOR Rural Communities Development Project in the Poorest Areas of the State of Bahia

Brazil 1486 788-BR VIVA O SEMI ÁRIDO (Piauí)

Semi-arid Sustainable Development Project in the State of Piauí

Brazil 1487 798-BR PROCASE (Paraíba)

Cariri and Seridó Sustainable Development Project

Brazil 1563 883-BR DOM TÁVORA (Sergipe)

Rural Business for Small Producers Project

Brazil 1619 882-BR PAULO FREIRE (Ceará)

Productive Development and Capacity-Building Project

Paraguay 1333 667-PY 792-PY

PARAGUAY RURAL

Empowerment of Rural Poor Organizations and Harmonization of Investments Project Paraguay Rural Project

Paraguay 1611 866-PY PARAGUAY INCLUSIVO

Inclusion of Family Farming in Value Chains Project



x

Glossary

Name Definition

Active Country A country where one or more projects are under implementation or in the pipeline.

Actual Problem Project Project rated 1, 2 or 3 (6-points rating scale) on one or both of the following criteria:

(i) progress achieved in meeting the development objectives; and (ii) project

implementation progress.

Beneficiaries The people, groups or organisations, whether targeted or not, that benefit, directly or

indirectly, from the development intervention.

Closing Date The date after which IFAD has the right to cancel any undisbursed balance and close

the loan account.

Completion Date The last day of the project implementation period. For projects approved after April

1999, the completion date is determined at loan effectiveness, taking into account the

estimated implementation period.

Component Umbrella under which activities are grouped that correlate to project outputs and

activities. Components are defined in terms of what the project intends to achieve.

Cooperating Institution The entity responsible for supervising the project and administering the loan/grant(s).

Counterpart Funds Financial resources provided by the government or recipient institution/organisation for

the implementation of the development intervention.

Current Closing Date The present loan closing date; date as per the most recent extension date or where no

extensions have been approved, the same as the original closing date.

Current Portfolio The current portfolio consists of projects approved but not completed, i.e. projects not

signed, not-effective and on-going.

Development Objective The higher-order objective to which a development intervention is intended to

contribute.

Disbursement The payments to recipient countries from allocated loan/grant proceeds. Funds are

disbursed on the basis of withdrawal applications, approved by the supervising

institution.

Disbursable Amount The value of effective loans (excluding closed loans) as at the end of reporting period

minus cumulative disbursement to date.

Disbursement Lag Actual disbursement/expected disbursement. Loans which are behind the expected

disbursement by 40% or more, are classified as having disbursement lag.

Disbursement Rate The percentage disbursed of the original loan amount. [Note: LGS disbursement

figures refer to net loan amounts.]

Effectiveness The extent to which a development intervention objectives were achieved or are

expected to be achieved taking into account their relative importance.

Empowerment The expansion of assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate

with, influence, control, and hold accountable institutions that affect their lives. It is

about people developing self-reliance and being able to make choices and influence

decisions.



xi

Name Definition

Efficiency The extent to which the project achieved, or is expected to achieve, benefits

commensurate with resources and inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.), based on

economic and financial analysis or unit costs compared with alternative options and

good practices.

Expected Disbursement Cumulative disbursement compared against the median of the % disbursement by

quarter for all loans.

Gender Equality The extent to which women and men have equal opportunities or life chances to

access and control socially valued goods and resources (and therefore benefits of a

development project or programme).

Gender Mainstreaming It implies ensuring that both women’s and men’s different concerns and experiences

are taken in all aspects of a project/programme. The aim is to overcome barriers

preventing women and men from having equal access to resources and benefits.

Impact Changes in the lives of the rural poor, intended or unintended, to which project

interventions have contributed, as well as the likely sustainability of such changes.

Impact Domains Domains currently adopted by IFAD Office of Evaluation for categorising and analysing

the impact generated by the development intervention. These include: physical assets,

food security, environment and common resource base, human assets, social capital,

agricultural productivity, institutions and services, financial assets and markets.

Implementation

Progress

The physical and financial progress of project activities as well as the progress made

towards producing the specified project outputs.

Innovation The development of improved and cost-effective ways to address

problems/opportunities faced by the rural poor. These encompass institutional and

technological approaches as well as pro-poor policies and partnership.

Inputs The financial, human and material resources used for the development intervention.

Lending Terms Based on per capita income (World Bank, Atlas method). Since 1994, terms are

calculated as fixed percentage of an established floating rate. IFAD lending terms are:

highly concessional, intermediate and ordinary.

Loan Effectiveness The date on which the conditions of effectiveness have been judged to be satisfactorily

met.

Maturity of the Portfolio Analysis of the age of the project portfolio, computed from the date of effectiveness.

Non-Active Country Country where there are no projects under implementation or in the pipeline.

Not at risk project Project rated 4, 5 or 6 on implementation performance and progress toward

development objectives and rated 1, 2 or 3 on less than five other PBAS indicators

(risk “flags”).

Ongoing Portfolio Portfolio of projects that have been declared effective but not yet completed.

Outputs Products, capital, goods and services which result from a development intervention or

activity.

Performance The degree to which a development intervention or a development partner operates

according to specific criteria/standards/guidelines or achieved results in accordance

with stated goals or plans.



xii

Name Definition

Pipeline Projects for which an Inception Memorandum has been approved (by AP/PD) are

considered part of the official pipeline. The pipeline is the group of projects that are

under consideration for eventual financing by IFAD.

Potential Problem

Project

Project rated 4, 5 or 6 on implementation performance and progress toward

development objectives but rated 1, 2 or 3 on five or more other PBAS indicators (risk

“flags”).

Project Duration The number of years that the project has been/will be implemented.

Project Status Report

(PSR)

Instrument adopted in the portfolio review process for monitoring the implementation

performance and progress achieved in the project development interventions. The

PSR informs the status of the project in terms of management, gender

equality/women’s empowerment, targeting performance and its responsiveness to the

principles of engagements.

Proactivity Index Share of projects rated as ‘actual problem’ in the previous year that have been

upgraded, restructured, closed, cancelled or suspended during the current review

period. This coincides with the definition of proactivity adopted by the World Bank and

can be used for benchmarking IFAD’s performance.

Project at Risk A project is defined as ‘at risk’ if it will likely not meet its development objective. Project

at risk includes ‘actual problem’ and ‘potential problem’ projects (see definitions

above).

Quality at Entry The merit or the worth of a development intervention and its compliance with given

standards. Usually applied to development projects at the time they are approved for

submission.

Relevance The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with

beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’

policies.

Results/Outcomes The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention.

Results and Impact

Management System

(RIMS)

Framework adopted by IFAD for measuring and reporting the results achieved by its

financed projects. It includes a menu of indicators for describing project activities,

immediate and long term results.

Risk Reduction Index This is the share of projects rated as ‘actual problem’ in the previous year that, despite

remaining in the ‘actual problem’ group, are featured by an improved performance.

This is calculated by comparing the average score on all PSR flags for the previous

year with the average for the current review period.

Sustainability The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development

assistance has been completed. The likelihood of continued long term benefits.

Target Group The specific individuals and/or organisations for whose benefits the development

intervention is undertaken.

Targeting A set of purposefully designed actions and measures to ensure, or at least significantly

increase the likelihood, that specific groups of poor people (target groups) will benefit

from a project or programme.



xiii

Map of Latin America and the Caribbean Region



xv

Executive Summary

1. The Division has seen its portfolio grow from 36 in 2011/12 to 42 ongoing projects in 2012/13.

The total value of the current portfolio US$is US$1.6 billion with IFAD and co-financing combined. The

portfolio of grants, albeit smaller in amount compared to previous cycles, has been strategically

aligned with country programmes and dedicated to advancing innovations, strengthening knowledge

management and to deepening policy dialogue. At closing of this cycle, IFAD country programmes in

the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region are delivering a basket of development services

that combine financial and non-financial products in support of small-scale rural farmers and excluded

rural communities.

2. In fact, during the cycle, the Division has been able to capitalize on the commitment and many

efforts made by the LAC governments to reduce the tremendous economic and social inequality that

continue to affect these countries particularly in rural areas, in spite of its middle income country

status. Indeed, during the cycle, the demand for investment grew and so did the amount of co-

financing contributed by the governments to IFAD’s projects.

3. Throughout the last three years, IFAD and the Division have also evolved. On one hand, the

institution is moving beyond replenishment sole resources and is exploring non-traditional resource

mobilization schemes that have helped temper the marked reduction of IFAD’s replenishment

resource allocation. Indeed, the Spanish Trust Fund scheme allowed the Division to be more

responsive to the countries’ demands for pro-poor agriculture and rural development investments. On

the other hand the Division has also continued to evolve. By the end of the cycle all IFAD projects are

directly supervised by IFAD staff, country presence has expanded and almost 50 per cent of all

country programme managers in the Division are out-posted across 5 country office locations. Further

decentralization of administrative, financial and programme functions are now in progress. The

objective is to increase the impact of country programmes through the provision of hands-on, real time

professional support and technical assistance to country programmes; as well as to further build on

opportunities for scaling up that might emerge in the countries.

4. In short, at the end of 2009-2012 cycle, the Latin America and Caribbean Division is functioning

with a different business model.

5. These profound and rapid changes, however, bring a number of challenges that will be the

focus of attention during the 2013-2015 cycle. First, the Division is faced with a new group of projects

that will need to come into effect or that will very soon enter in their first early stages of

implementation. Intense implementation support to these new operations must be provided to each

individual operation and to the portfolio as a whole. Past experiences has shown that support in the

early phases of project implementation is crucial to ensure the successful implementation of the

projects at later stages. For this to be effectively attained, project supervision and implementation

support budgets must be secured. Supervision and implementation support of the on-going portfolio

must be kept within established fiduciary and programmatic corporate standards, tailored in

accordance with the needs and capacities of the lending partners.

6. Although the LAC region has weathered well the global financial crisis, its fiscal and debt

spaces continue to be prudently managed which, at times limits the timely availability of counterpart

funds and the Division’s disbursement capacity. This is a second big challenge for the Division. The

out-posting of CPMs and the expansion of IFAD’s presence in the field should be conducive in

intensifying work in this area of intense dialogue with the ministries of agriculture and especially with

the ministries of finance is a key factor in mitigating this risk.

7. While being widely recognized by the governments of the region as a prime agency with

expertise in working with small scale farmers and in excluded rural communities, IFAD and the LAC

Division are faced with the challenge of deepening programme instruments in order to deliver

sophisticated knowledge and innovation to the predominant middle-income countries (MICs) of the

region. Analytical work and technical assistance are requested by governments who are conscious of



xvi

the need to reduce rural poverty and increase productivity and employment in rural areas, but that do

not yet have in place clear strategies or the adequate policies for doing so. The division’s grants

portfolio aims to close this gap. Policy-oriented work is being financed in collaboration with specialized

agencies and think tanks in the region such as CEPAL, RIMISP, universities and research centres.

The divisional grants programme is supporting new frontier work in the area of youth, south-south

collaboration, M&E. Attaining the seamless integration of the activities and results of the grant

portfolio is work in progress and represents an objective of the 2012-2015 cycle.

8. Last but not least is IFAD’s challenge of mobilizing sufficient resources both within and outside

the replenishment to respond to the increasing demands in support of agriculture and rural

development for small-scale farmers in LAC. As well reflected in this report, IFAD’s funds contribution

to the LAC programme has sharply declined during the last three years. In an environment of overall

decline of Official Development Assistance (ODA) funds and in view of the growth and average GDP

per capita of all LAC countries, an increase of IFAD’s resources in the region is no longer in the

horizon. Hence, the institution must continue to make progress in seeking ‘alternative’ financing

models able to guarantee its effective engagement with middle-income countries such as those in

LAC.

9. The new three years cycle that began in 2013 is therefore a cycle of consolidation of the

programme and of its new business model. During the coming years, the almost completely new

programme portfolio must gain momentum in terms of implementation of demonstrating programme

results and impact. It is a cycle in which decentralization to country office and the increased field

presence should be allowed to evolve and consolidate, and in which management systems

established by the institution will need to be responsive to, and aligned with: the evolution of our

programmes’ funding basket model, the urgencies of managing half of the Division from Rome, and

the need to approach budget management as a composite of IFAD and non-IFAD sources of

contribution for implementation support, project design and project supervision.

10. LAC’s methodology for the Portfolio Review Process involves firstly the review and analysis of the supervision aide memoire by the Portfolio Advisor and secondly a discussion with the concerned CPMs.. Since 2012, the ratings on some of the fiduciary aspects are proposed by CFS Division., The continuous monitoring of portfolio fiduciary aspects is supported through intensive implementation support to project management units by LAC country teams together with increased involvement of CFS staff in project and country program supervision missions.

11. The main sources of information of the Portfolio Review were the Country Programme Issues Sheets (CPIS) together with project/programme reports including Supervision, Mid-Term Review and Completion Reports, and Project and Grant Status Reports (PSRs and GSRs). Other data sources included IFAD’s data bases (PPMS, LGS, GRIPS and RIMS online). CFS also provided inputs for the sections on loan/grant closures, cancellations, arrears, disbursements and risk assessments.



1

I. Overview of the economic and social situation

The LAC region as a whole will continue to show moderate rates of economic growth in 2013 1.

and 2014 largely due to a global economic slowdown both in developed and emerging economies.

However, it is expected that the region will preserve an overall macroeconomic stability and will

continue to advance a number of reforms in order to ensure the sustainability of social and economic

progress so far achieved. These reforms include, among others, fiscal consolidation and counter-

cyclical policies that function as such; in other words, that expand in times of economic contraction

and that are dismantled when conditions are more favourable.

Creating employment, promoting productivity in the rural sector, and expanding access to 2.

markets for small-scale farming and rural entrepreneurship, must be a priority in the actions that IFAD

takes to provide support in the region. Not only do these represent a source of pro-poor economic

growth and sustainability of social policy measures adopted to reduce poverty, but they are also

conducive to reducing inequality in the region.

The type and the extent of support that IFAD can provide to Latin American and Caribbean 3.

countries must be determined by the different performances of the region’s economies in terms of

economic growth, varying levels of poverty and inequality, and also by their institutional capacity. In

this sense, lending instruments are a fundamental tool, but they are not the only one. Policy dialogue,

regional and national grants, and strategic planning exercises such as the COSOP must be geared

towards increasing levels of social inclusion in Latin America’s rural population.

Economic outlook A.

The global economy continues to be very volatile. Four years ago this was due to the financial 4.

crisis that began in the United States in 2008 and the recession. In 2012 and 2013 the risk factors

were mainly due to the European debt crisis and forecasts of an economic slowdown in China.

Throughout Latin American and the Caribbean, the recession caused a small relative decrease 5.

in its GDP level (-1.6% in 2009), which demonstrates a certain capacity to withstand external shocks

when compared with other regions of the world. Furthermore, the region made an important

contribution to global economic growth and recovery; some estimates of this contribution are in the

range of 14%.1

Although it is true that the rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was significant in 2010 6.

(6.2%), in 2011 and in the first part of 2012 it weakened due to a contraction in domestic demand. In

addition, the volatility of financial markets increased the risk premium, which also contributed to an

increase in commodity prices. In 2011 GDP growth was moderate (4.5%) and for 2012 an even lower

rate of growth (3.7%)2 has been predicted as a result of the uncertainty brought on by the European

crisis and the slowdown of growth in China.

The performance throughout the region is heterogeneous. In 2011 economic growth in the sub-7.

region including Central America and Mexico (4%) was due in great part to the increased dynamism in

Panama that was brought on by the expansion of the canal and the construction of the metropolitan

railway system. Growth in the Mercosur (4%) was influenced by Paraguay’s economic growth and by

the contraction of Brazil’s domestic demand, while the Caribbean sub-region (4.1%) benefitted from

the recovery of the tourism sector. The Andean sub-region (5.9%) was favoured by increased

dynamism in Peru and Ecuador’s economies.3

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s

projections, by the end of 2012 the region as a whole will see an increase in its tendency towards

economic recovery and it will grow, on average, by about 4% in 2013-2014.

This ability to react that the region has demonstrated can be attributed to a combination of 8.

factors including, on one hand, a sustained effort in the region to maintain macroeconomic stability;

1 IADB (2012)

2 WEO-IMF, April, 2002.

3 Prepared on the basis of WEO-IMF data, April, 2012. Mean differences were weighted according to the size of the economy.



2

taking advantage of the increase in international commodity prices in order to sustain economic

growth, and; pursuing fiscal discipline even in times of crisis. All of these measures have allowed

countries to implement counter-cyclical policies, albeit to varying degrees.

Although the increase in international prices of primary commodities favoured some countries 9.

during the financial crisis, strong dependence on revenue from these export products makes the

region relatively vulnerable to changes in the global markets. Thus, for example, it is estimated that a

decrease in the price of metals such as copper would affect countries like Peru and Chile, while a

decrease in the price of grains would negatively impact economies such as those of Argentina or

Brazil.

In the fiscal realm, counter-cyclical policy has played a critical role in mitigating the adverse 10.

effects of the financial crisis. Public spending in the region increased from 24.1% in 2005 to 28.8% in

2009, while social public spending increased from 15.2% to 17.9% in the same time period.4

However, just as the region’s ability to respond to the 2008 crisis has been recognized, today 11.

we are being alerted to the possible risks associated with increasing the region’s structural deficit, as

a result of the governments’ inability to dismantle expenditure frameworks that should contract after

the crisis has passed. The increase in public spending witnessed after the Great Recession is keeping

the many countries’ fiscal deficit above the prudent limit of 3% of GDP5, relatively weakening their

fiscal position if faced with an adverse shock in the future. Overall, the region’s fiscal deficit went from

1.2% of GDP to 2.6% of GDP during the past five years.6

In terms of inflation, the vast majority of countries have limited this variable to a single digit. 12.

Monetary policy, in conjunction with other economic policies, has been critical to this achievement. By

means of active policy, the region’s governments have gradually increased the rate of interest of

monetary policy, introduced tariff quotas on imports of certain commodities, and strengthened social

protection networks.

In spite of its good macroeconomic performance, the region continues to have significant 13.

sources of vulnerability that it will need to address in the years ahead. At the forefront are the need to

strengthen its fiscal positions in order to meet future crises, the risk associated with significant capital

inflows into the region, and its dependence on primary commodities. Even so, their clear that Latin

America and that the Caribbean have gone through a period of learning and of improving its economic

policy instruments, and they have emerged better equipped to meet the challenges that arise from the

volatile performance of the global economy.

Social outlook B.

In 2011 the total population of Latin America and the Caribbean was approximately 595 million, 14.

of which 20.5% lived in rural areas. In countries for which there is available data, by 2008

approximately 6.5% of people survived on less than US$ 1.25 a day, and 12.4% survived on less than

US$ 2 a day.7

In terms of fight against poverty and reducing inequality, the region has shown a positive trend. 15.

During the past two decades, the general poverty headcount ratio decreased from 48.4% in 1990 to

31.4% in 2010. The extreme poverty headcount went from 22.6% to 12.3% in the same period. These

results are attributed, to a great extent, to redistribution efforts, among which conditional transfer

types of social protection programmes have played a predominant role. Although this decrease took

place in both urban and rural areas, the gap between the two continues to be wide. For example, in

2010 the rural poverty rate was two times greater than the urban poverty rate, and four times higher in

the case of extreme poverty.8

4 ECLAC-STAT 5

In 2011, the countries in the region with a fiscal deficit greater than 3% of GDP were Argentina, the Bahamas, Barbados, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, and the Grenadines. 6 WEO-IMF, April, 2012

7 WDI-WB

8 ECLAC-STAT



3

According to the World Bank’s classifications, with the exception of Haiti, all of the region’s 16.

countries are categorized as high and middle-income countries possessing an average per capital

income of US$ 5,1769 in 2011. According to the 2011 Human Development Index (HDI), Latin

American and Caribbean countries are among those with high and medium human development with

an average HDI of 0.731, which is above the global average (0.682).10

However, due to the high levels of inequality that persist in the region, these national averages 17.

present a distorted picture of the living conditions in significant territorial spaces and population

groups, including, notably, Indigenous groups, those of African descent, and the rural population in

general.

While it is true that Latin America and the Caribbean are ranked first in the world in terms of 18.

regions with the greatest inequality - in 2010 the Gini coefficient was 0.52 - recent empirical evidence

shows that some countries have begun to reverse this trend.11

Changes in inequality can be explained

mainly by three fundamental factors: a narrowing in the income gap between skilled and low-skilled

workers, an increase in policies favouring the poor, and social protection programmes such as

conditional cash transfer payments in the majority of countries in the region.

Even though there are positive news stemming from economic growth, macroeconomic 19.

resilience, and poverty and inequality decreases, the region continues to face various challenges.

Urban unemployment was 6.8% in 201112

, inequality continues to be a significant obstacle for human

development, fiscal sustainability must be undertaken in order to maintain the region’s ability to act in

a counter-cyclical manner in times of economic crisis, and extreme weather events continue to

disproportionately impact the most vulnerable social groups.

The rural sector C.

The rural sector has become increasingly important in Latin America and the Caribbean in 20.

recent years as some countries have benefitted from the increase in global prices of food. In other

countries, the net food importers, this increase has not only put food security at risk, but it also

constitutes another source of vulnerability, in addition to extreme weather events.

In the last decade, the aggregate value of regional agriculture has been, on average, 8,6% of 21.

GDP with values fluctuating between 10% of GDP in the Mercosur, Mexico and Central America, and

7% of GDP in the remaining sub-regions, while the aggregate value of services and of regional

industry have been, on average, 62% and 32% of GDP, respectively. Furthermore, the agricultural

sector represents a source of employment for 14% the region’s labour force, while the services and

industry sectors employ 63% and 23% of the labour of force, respectively.13

The incorporation of technology in agriculture and in rural areas has helped to increase the 22.

productivity of agricultural labour in the region from US$ 2,618 per person in 2000 to US$ 3,684 per

person in 2009.14

Labour productivity in this sector is highest in countries with greater relative land

endowments, such as Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, and lower in countries with lesser relative land

endowments such as Guatemala, Bolivia, and Nicaragua.15

However, these gains in the sector’s

productivity are met with a double challenge. On one hand, the increases are the result of significant

participation of commercial agriculture, which is more capital-intensive than labour-intensive. In other

words, volumes of job creation and/or increases in the agricultural workers’ real wages are not

automatically guaranteed. On the other hand, this dynamic agricultural sector structured by modern

technology coexists with rural areas where family farming, which is characterized by lower levels of

productivity and a population without access to land, is most prevalent. Recent studies estimate that

9 At 2000 constant prices. 10 UNDP, 2012 11 From 2002-2010, the countries showing a reduction in the Gini coefficient were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador,

Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela (ECLAC-STAT). 12 OIT, 2012 13 WDI-WB 14

WDI-WB 15 ECLAC, 2007



4

only 8% of family farmers are totally integrated into value chains and that only 25% have good

potential for fully participating in the modern agricultural sector.

From a broader perspective, Latin American rural development has been the target of a variety 23.

of income-generating strategies among which agricultural income is certainly an important element.

However, it is not the only one. This is particularly important for IFAD’s target groups, such as youth

populations and rural women, for whom the promotion of alternative sources of income is critical in

order to ensure the sustainability of the rural environment in which they live.

The progress and challenges in LAC rural development D.

As mentioned previously, the trends presented in this overview are regional averages. LAC 24.

countries, however, differ significantly from one another. Three development indicators remain

relevant to IFAD when assessing the overall performance of the region: the rate of economic growth,

changes in poverty levels, and changes in income distribution.

Brazil, Peru and Uruguay continued with sustained high rates of economic growth and of rural 25.

poverty reduction, and income distribution continued to improve. In these countries, national

conditions are most conducive for IFAD to achieve its strategic objectives. As shown below in this

report, these countries have become important co-financiers of IFAD projects, with contributions that

often approach or exceed 50% of the projects' total cost. In these countries IFAD has developed

alliances that allow us to substantially increase the impact of our operations. Policy dialogue,

knowledge management and south-south collaboration and exchanges have worked as instruments

for an up-scaled strategy aimed at mainstreaming our experience in those national policies and

strategies that are already strong.

Despite rapid economic growth, rural poverty and income inequality remains very high and a 26.

major challenge in Colombia, Honduras and Guatemala. In these countries, drug-related crime and

violence and weak rural sector institution are a major challenge. In these countries, IFAD continues to

work with governments and other stakeholders to position rural development as a priority for local and

national development. In Colombia, with the possibility of a peace agreement that places rural

development and land as core of the peace agenda, IFAD is being asked to expand its programme of

work and to adopt a stronger strategic-policy orientation. In the case of Guatemala, a particular

window of opportunity opened with the new government, which declared that rural development and

social protection will be two pillars of their administration. Lack of political consensus regarding the

reforms necessary to support these programmes, is seriously jeopardizing poverty-reduction and

business opportunities for the rural poor.

In Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela rural poverty and income inequality have been 27.

decreasing over several years. These countries have put in place strong social inclusion policies that

are having a positive impact on the rural poor. On the one hand, IFAD operations face a favourable

political environment that gives high priority to investments in the rural poor. In some countries IFAD

has been called upon to support institutional reform processes for the rural sector, such has been the

case in Nicaragua and Ecuador. However, on the other hand, it remains a challenge to create solid

and sustainable opportunities for poor rural households to move themselves out of poverty when the

economies are not expanding.

Mexico, El Salvador and Paraguay continue to show little improvement in terms of reducing 28.

rural poverty and income inequality. In Mexico, IFAD is working with key policy-makers and other

stakeholders to design and implement innovative projects that show how rural development can be

done in better ways, so that the Fund and the countries can take advantage of this learning on a

larger scale. Some of these countries, notably Mexico and El Salvador, are increasingly interested in

innovating in the way they have traditionally done rural development; this may be a result of the

societal pressure to accelerate the pace of development on both the economic and the social fronts.

Consequently, IFAD is being asked to help governments, through technical assistance and policy

dialogue initiatives, in their quest for better and more innovative ways to promote development in rural



5

areas. In Paraguay IFAD is being asked to scale up innovative and successful public-private

partnership project operations.

The English Caribbean sub-region continues to pose several challenges for IFAD. The small 29.

size of countries, their high debt burden, limited human capital and low absorptive capacities

necessitate that IFAD adopt an innovative approach to its interventions in this sub-region. While IFAD

recognizes the pressing need to revitalize the agricultural sector in the Caribbean and to address

issues of rural poverty, youth unemployment and climate change, the current business model has a

high cost of design, delivery and administration of a plethora of small loans to individual member

states. The Latin America and the Caribbean Division is, as a result, exploring a multi-country

programme approach to reduce administrative costs, build synergies across the countries and bring

common solutions to similar problems across small island states.



6

II. Country programmes

RB-COSOPs presented to the EB A.

New RB-COSOP

The number of countries with an approved RB-COSOP has increased to ten following the 30.

presentation of new COSOPs for Honduras16

and Nicaragua to the Executive Board (EB) in

December 2012 (see Table 1 in the appendix). The focus of IFAD strategy in Honduras for the

forthcoming 2013-2016 COSOP period is on the promotion of rural competitiveness through improved

market access and the development of agricultural and non-agricultural small businesses and micro

enterprises and strengthening of human and social capital in rural areas. IFAD’s new strategy in

Nicaragua will support government and farmer organisations efforts to increase growth in the

agricultural sector as a vehicle for reducing poverty, with an emphasis on (i) scaling up on-going

efforts to improve rural productivity and competitiveness and to strengthen the capacities of

Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities on the Caribbean Coast, and (ii) support the

development of innovative models, in particular for inclusive development of small rural businesses,

especially those led by women and youth, and for small farmer market access.

RB-COSOP review and preparation programme

The Bolivia RB-COSOP (Results Based Country Strategic Opportunities Programme) was 31.

extensively reviewed in Q IV 2012 and realigned on the basis of the progress made towards its

targets and the electoral cycle. The review conclusive meeting confirmed the validity of RB-COSOP

results management framework and agreed on minor adjustments. Preparation of an RB-COSOP will

start in the second semester of 2013 in Ecuador for presentation next year. This first RB-COSOP in

Ecuador will benefit from the recently finalised country programme evaluation. The last review of the

Peru RB-COSOP took place in March 2012 following the MTR carried out in 2011. The Division plans

to start the preparation of a new RB-COSOP as soon as a new CPM for the country is appointed for

likely presentation during 2014.

In Brazil, the COSOP review has been moved to Q IV 2013 in order to take into account 32.

developments arising from the increase of the country programme following the entry into force of

three new investment projects during the review period. The preparation of a new RB-COSOP is

planned for 2015 when a new government will be in place following presidential elections in late 2014.

As regards the Mexico, Central America and Caribbean sub-region, the Division has started 33.

preparation of a new RB-COSOP in Mexico following presidential elections held in July 2012. This

includes a review of the rural poverty situation in the country and Mexico’s national rural sector

policies and priorities as a basis for determination of the geographic and thematic concentration of the

new strategy that will be implemented through the current projects and a new programme that would

be identified during the COSOP preparation process that is expected to be completed next year.

While there was no review this year of the Dominican Republic COSOP due to the significant 34.

delays in the implementation of the on-going project and in the start-up of the new one, a new 2013-

2018 RB-COSOP for Haiti was approved by OSC in June 2013 and will be presented to the EB in

September. The proposed strategy is centred on two complementary axes, improved access to

markets, including financial services, and the promotion of climate-smart agricultural practices.

As an RB-COSOP was not required, IFAD’s strategy in El Salvador is outlined in the design 35.

documents of the project AMANECER RURAL17

, and the country programme is implemented and

monitored under an RB-COSOP consistent type of results management framework. The Division

plans to prepare a COSOP for this country after national elections in 2014.

In Guatemala, initial consultations with government started in September 2012 and were 36.

followed by a number of workshops held in October and a number of studies undertaken by

16

The new RB-COSOP for Honduras replaces the former RB-COSOP that had been approved in April 2007. 17

Project ES 1568



7

specialists in different areas. A preliminary strategy document supported by the feedback from the in-

country consultations and the working papers documenting the studies was discussed at a CPMT

meeting in Rome in December 2012. Due to an unexpected prolongation of the bottlenecks originated

by parliamentary deliberations on the IFAD programme, the finalisation of the process has been

adjourned, pending a re-assessment of the status of the programme in Q III 2013.

A review of the RB-COSOP in Panama started in March 2013 and is due for completion by end-37.

2013. Preliminary findings include the persistence of severe poverty in rural areas despite a

successful economic performance over the last years and the need for increasing domestic food

production to meet local demand and reduce the national food supply deficit. Stakeholders highlighted

the degree of alignment and harmonisation of the COSOP with government policies and strategies,

the evolving institutional framework with the emergence of new players, especially with regard to

gender and land tenure issues. They also underlined the negative consequences of continuous

rotation of staff in the on-going project and recommended a review of the impact of the recently

completed 8-year NGOBE-BUGLE project as it developed relevant strategies for women and

Indigenous people’s empowerment.

Country programme issues B.

As described in the CPIS published in volume II of this report, institutional instability or weak 38.

capacities, compounded by high turnover of project authorities / leading agencies and of project

personnel, continued to figure prominently among the issues negatively affecting the performance of

country programmes. This was the case of 11 of the 19 countries with active programmes in the

region. The countries where this problem has not warranted explicit reference in CPIS are Brazil in the

Southern Cone sub-region, El Salvador, Grenada, Honduras and Mexico in the Mexico, Central

America and Caribbean sub-region and three (Colombia Peru and Venezuela) of the five countries in

the Andean sub-region. The main response of the Division was the provision of implementation

support, help in the selection of external technical assistance and the organisation of training where

appropriate, combined with continuous dialogue with relevant government institutions to build

government ownership and agree on remedial actions and, less often, more comprehensive

institutional strengthening programmes, that are nevertheless considered in Guatemala and in Haiti.

This year, budgetary constraints, including absence of fiscal to access IFAD and counterpart 39.

funding, were at the origin of a slow-down of implementation of on-going projects, or of delayed start-

up of newly effective projects. The country programme in Argentina suffered from budget constraints

at a provincial rather than a central government level. Scarcity, unpredictability of amounts and timing

of delivery and actual delays in the provision of counterpart funding adversely affected project

operations in Bolivia and in Ecuador, Grenada, Honduras, Paraguay and Peru. Lacking fiscal space is

the single most important factor explaining the serious difficulties experienced in the Dominican

Republic. The failure to allocate budgetary resources to new projects becoming effective delayed or

prevented the start-up of new operations also in El Salvador, Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru.

Incidentally, in two Andean countries, Colombia and Venezuela, IFAD financed projects have been

receiving extra government contributions significantly above originally planned levels that led to a

slower drawdown of IFAD funds and are, to a certain extent, at the origin of the extension of projects

CO 1274 and VE 1252.

This fiscal space issue warrants special attention as it has grown to a scale that significantly 40.

impacts on the pace of project implementation and consequent delivery of outputs and is a major

determinant of a slow-down of overall IFAD disbursements to the region during this review period. The

Division has intensified monitoring of counterpart funding allocation and delivery, as well as dialogue

with country authorities, including ministries of finance, and with members of parliament to gain

political support both for the IFAD programme and for rural development in general.

Despite obstacles as noted above, the IFAD programme in the region includes many successful 41.

investment and non-investment activities. In Brazil, policy dialogue is one of the main axes of the

IFAD programme. This has been built during the implementation by the Ministry of Agrarian

development of the first phase of the successful Dom Helder Camara project (BR 1101), and, more



8

recently, facilitated by a project under the grant programme (TAG 1187) that promoted exchange of

expertise and knowledge sharing among governments and farmer organisations from Brazil, China,

India and South Africa. It has been consolidated during the design of project BR 1620 that is planned

for presentation to the EB in December 2013. This new project, which will add a new national

dimension to the existing base of five large investment projects in the North-Eastern of Brazil under

financing agreements directly with sub-national States. The forthcoming project will create a platform

for facilitating continuous dialogue on public policies for family farming aimed at enhancing their

implementation and scaling up successful innovative experiences generated by IFAD-supported and

other national and state level programmes.

In El Salvador, the country programme has been increasingly successful in partnership 42.

development as evidenced by its degree of harmonisation with initiatives from other development

partners, primarily the Millenium Challenge Account (MCA) financed Productive Development

Investments, and by the agreement established with Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (OXFAM)

America to implement a community savings project and a market study in support of an increased

rural business development orientation of project ES 1321. The same is the case in Honduras through

partnerships with the World Bank (WB) financed COMRURAL and the IDB- financed PRONEGOCIOS

programmes, as well as the new U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Feed the

Future initiative.



9

III. Current investment portfolio and operations

Characteristics A.

As at June 2013, the current investment portfolio comprised 45 projects (see Table 2 in the 43.

appendix). The total value of IFAD financing amounted to US$683 million, US$3 million less than in

June last year. This loss in value is explained by the difference between the amounts of IFAD

financing for the four projects that left the portfolio (US$91.7 million) and for the five projects approved

(US$88.3 million). In effect, the average IFAD financing for the projects completed or cancelled this

year (US$22.9 million) was 30% above the US$17.7 million average loan size of approved projects.

The above reflects a structural change in the distribution of projects by sub-region. As shown in Table

3 in the appendix, the MCAC sub-region share of IFAD financing has dropped from 55% in 2011 to

43% in June 2013, whereas the weight of the Andean and Southern Cone sub-regions increased from

24% to 33% and from 21% to 24% respectively over the same period. This change is primarily the

consequence of the Performance Based Allocation System (PBAS) system introduced in 2004.

While, as noted above, the value of the IFAD financed portion of the current investment portfolio 44.

went down, the on-going portfolio in turn raised dramatically during the review period, to 42 projects in

June 2013, from 36 last year and 33 in June 2011. This resulted primarily from the increase in the

number of projects that became effective from seven in 2011-2012 to nine this year. There were also

more projects extended during this period, five compared with only one last year. In terms of value,

the IFAD financed portion of the on-going portfolio has increased by 21% from last year and, more

impressively, jumped by 44% since 2006 following a continued upward trend. This sudden increase in

the number of on-going projects has implications for the divisional supervision programme. The

workload of CPMs has increased as there is need to attend to an additional number of projects. There

are also budgetary implications, especially in terms of additional consultant time and travelling, with a

peak in 2014 when recently effective projects will require above average support as they are in the

start-up phase.

Chart I - Average IFAD financing per project (on-going portfolio)

The Division will 45.

continue to do its best to

contain expenditure on

supervision and

implementation support, but its

efforts to improve efficiency are

limited by relative small

average amount of IFAD

financing per project. Chart I

beside shows how much the

gap between the LAC and the

IFAD average amount of IFAD

financing per project has grown

over the past few years. This is

a consequence of the PBAS system.

Table I - LAC and IFAD overall current portfolio 2000 – 2012 (IFAD financing)

Also as a consequence of 46.

the PBAS system,The LAC

region has experienced a drastic

reduction of its share of overall

IFAD financing, from 18% in 2000

to 12% in 2012, as shown in

Table I beside. While the value of

June

2000

June

2013

June

2000

June

2013

No. of

projectsValue

LAC 40 42 471 642 2 36.3%

IFAD 209 254 2 638 5 451 45 106.6%

LAC % 19% 17% 18% 12%

No. of projects Value (US$ m) Variation (%)



10

IFAD financing in the current portfolio has increased by 107% over the past 13 years for IFAD as

whole, it has increased by 36% for the LAC region.

Remarkable achievements on the mobilisation of co-financing nevertheless placed the Division 47.

in a much more favourable situation in terms of total amount of resources made available to the

region to finance IFAD’s unique kind of poverty reduction interventions. As shown in Table II below,

while the IFAD financed portion of the regional current portfolio increased modestly by 10% from

2011, external co-financing, excluding government co-financing and funds from other domestic

sources, has almost doubled since 2011. In others words, in terms of project financing, at the closing

of the 2012 cycle, the LAC division has a different business model. This new business model also has

implications in the way of approaching and managing the administrative budget of the Division. Costs

for project design and project supervision is made up of several sources of funding adding complexity

to the traditional way budgets eased to be managed.

Table II - Variation of current portfolio financing structure 2011-2013 (US$m)

Chart II - Current portfolio by financing sources

This enabled a 48.

27% growth of the

gross current portfolio

that reached the mark

of US$1 billion this

year. A very large

proportion (86%) of

the US$318 million of

external co-financing

is provided from three

sources, namely GEF,

OFID and STF

(details in Table 8

Table 7 in the

appendix). This has

significant

implications for the

programme of work of

the Division since the

financial administration and the supervision for these three sources is under IFAD responsibility.

Although the MCAC sub-region retains the largest share at almost 50% of the regional total, its

amount of co-financing has remained virtually unchanged at about US$150 million. The Andean sub-

region shows the largest increase. Chart II above illustrates how significantly the financing structure of

the regional portfolio has changed in the past few years.

Current portfolio by sectors/themes

Table 4 in the appendix shows a notable increment in the Market and Rural Enterprises 49.

Development domain, which currently represents around one third of the IFAD financing for

investment projects. During the last five review periods this domain increased by 28%, from US$153

million in 2009 to US$195 million this year. This is mainly due to the growing role that the business

MCAC AND S. Cone Total AND S. Cone Total

2010/2011 355 130 147 632 7 6 165 785

2012/2013 295 223 165 683 97 64 318 1001

Variation (USD m) -48 93 18 63 91 58 153 216

Variation (%) -14% 71% 12% 10% 1353% 993% 93% 27%

Total LAC

157

4

3%

IFAD financing External co-financing

MCAC

152

External financing0

100

200

300

400

MCAC AND SC MCAC AND SC

2011 2013

152

7 6

157

97 64

355

130 147

295

223

165

Fin

anci

ng

amo

un

ts (

USD

mill

ion

)

External financing



11

development activities are playing in newly designed projects, especially in the Central America and

Caribbean sub-region, whose share is 29% this year compared to 20% in 2009. The Social

Development domain also experienced important variations during the period (17% increase), which

represents 27% this year compared to 24% in 2009. This is the result of resources provided to

facilitate development of funds in rural areas, with special emphasis in the Andean and the Southern

Cone sub-regions. During the same period, there was a decrease in Agriculture, Livestock and

Fisheries Development (-26% decrease) as a result of reduced investments in technology transfer

and development, and training.

During the period in analysis, the Environment and Common Resources domain shows a slight 50.

negative variation (-2% decrease). This is explained by increasing co-financing from Global

Environment Facility (GEF).

Financing terms Chart III - IFAD financing by lending terms (current portfolio): 2000-2013

Although heterogeneous, 51.

good macroeconomic performance

in the region has affected the

portfolio lending terms structure

(see Chart III beside). At present,

almost 70% of the current portfolio

is under ordinary lending terms.

While the proportion of highly

concessional terms remained

stable until 2009 when it started to

decrease gently, the share of

intermediate lending terms

dropped from 16% to 8% in the last

five years.

Table III - IFAD financing approved by lending terms

The structural 52.

change in the portfolio is

also reflected in the

evolution of the IFAD

financing by lending

terms. As shown in Table

III beside, the proportion

of loans approved on

ordinary terms increased

from 42% in the five year 1998-2003 period to 75% in the latest five years, while those approved on

intermediate and highly concessional terms dropped from 57% to 25% over the same period.

Co-financed projects

The further co-financing increase in LAC portfolio has resulted in US$1.01 provided on average 53.by external sources for each dollar invested by IFAD, which is higher compared to US$0.89 last year and US$0.55 in 2010. This ratio is the result of increased co-financing provided by governments, especially in the Andean sub-region, where government co-financing reached US$0.49 for each dollar committed by IFAD, compared with US$0.35 last year.

As illustrated in Table IV below, IFAD financing further decreased its share from 61% in 2011 54.and 52% last year to 50% this year, while total external financiers contribution remained stable this year at 23% as the year before, nevertheless, at sub-regional level, the external co-financing increased in the Andean Sub-region from US$0.30 last year to US$0.42 this year. This is the combined result of the external financing provided by the Spanish Trust Fund (STF), Corporacion Andina de Fomento (CAF) and (GEF).

Lending Terms 1998 -2003 2008 -2013

(US$ '000) % (US$ '000) %

Ordinary 168 949 42% 348 265 75%

Intermediate 77 198 19% 18 000 4%

Highly Concessional and DSF

153 094 38% 99 657 21%

Total 399 241 100 465 922 100



12

Table IV - Current portfolio co-financing ratio

As shown in Table 8 in the appendix, Government financing has continued to grow in 55.

importance, now representing 20% or more of total project financing in eight countries, with

determinant proportions in Argentina (48%) and Brazil (43%).

Quality at entry

Four projects18

went through the Quality Assurance (QA) process this year. Two of them 56.

(projects CU 1677 and HN 1682) were reviewed under IFAD IX results management framework

indicators. These four projects were reviewed by three different QA external advisers, the same

adviser having reviewed projects HN 1682 and VE 1609. The IFAD Chief Development Strategist

chaired all QA meetings. In all projects, the QA review confirmed the likelihood of achieving their

respective development objectives. The QA chair endorsed the design of all four projects, with a

requirement for to address some of the recommendations during negotiations or during

implementation in the case of the projects in Haiti and Honduras. The two other projects received

green light to proceed with minor changes specified in the QA minutes. While the overall quality of

project design was rated moderately satisfactory for Cuba and Honduras, QA assigned score 5 to the

design documentation for projects in Haiti and Venezuela. All projects rated moderately satisfactory or

better in alignment and institutional implementation capacity. The Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela projects

scored five on these two indicators, the design for Cuba being recognised exemplary (score 6) in

terms of alignment with the context of the host country reality. Project VE 1609 also received the

highest score (6) in the Results Management Framework (RMF) gender indicator. Interestingly, the

gender best practices incorporated in the design of these projects received no reference in the QA

minutes.

In accordance with the data received from the QA secretariat, the most recurrent issue in the 57.

design of the above four projects according to the QA relates to logframes. In one case, the project

log-frame needed to be modified for consistency with a revised formulation of the project development

objective agreed during the QA review process. The issue and recommendation in the other case

related to the agreement reached during the QA process on refining project outreach indicators.

The economic analysis has been highlighted for two projects also. In one project, the 58.

recommendation was to reassess increase in the income of a type of project beneficiary in order to

reconcile beneficiary income increases as part of project objectives with incremental incomes used in

the financial analysis of crop models; and to recalculate the economic rate of return to include the full

cost of soil and water conservation and related watershed management activities. For the other

project the recommendation was more comprehensive and entailed the revision of the financial and

economic calculations and sensitivity analysis on the basis of alternative crop production projections

and more reasonable yield estimates.

Finally, environmental issues have been raised in two project designs. In one case, the QA 59.

process highlighted the need for additional funding for soil and water conservation activities. In the

other, the agreed recommendation focused on incorporating in the main text of the project design

18

Projects CU 1677, HN 1682, HT 1532 and VE 1609

USD m % USD m % USD m % USD m % USD m % USD m % USD m % USD m %

IFAD 196 60 343 56 148 41 686 53 223 52 295 55 165 41 683 50

Government 69 21 90 15 154 43 313 24 110 26 80 15 178 44 368 27

External Cofinancier 59 18 182 30 56 16 297 23 93 22 165 30 64 16 321 23

LAC Total 324 100 614 100 358 100 1296 100 426 100 540 100 407 100 1372 100

0.66 0.79 1.42 0.89 0.91 0.83 1.46 1.01

0.35 0.26 1.05 0.46 0.49 0.27 1.07 0.54

0.30 0.53 0.36 0.43 0.42 0.56 0.36 0.47

NOTE: Amounts include GEF financing yet to be recorded in PPMS (for projects BR 1101, HN 1595 and VE 1252)

Financier

2011 - 2012 2012 - 2013

Andean MCAC Southern Cone Total Andean MCAC Southern Cone Total

Co-financing ratio

Overall

Government

External Cofinancier



13

report the principal findings and recommendations presented in the annex to the main report on

environment.

Operations B.

Approvals

In addition to two GEF grants in support of on-going projects, five new investment projects with 60.

a total amount of US$88.3 million in IFAD financing have been approved in the second semester of

2012.

Table V - Financing approved during the review period

As shown in Table 9 in the appendix, a total amount of US$289 million of IFAD financing has 61.

been delivered during the triennium. However, the increased regional demand of resources could be

met thanks to the availability of the Spanish Trust Fund that provided financing for US$169 million,

equivalent to 37% of total amount of US$458.2 million approved in 2010-2012.

Pre-implementation activities

Nine new projects, with a combined value of US$185.6 million, became effective during the 62.

review period, two projects more than last year and more than double the equivalent amount in 2011-

2012. The average effectiveness lag has increased from 14.9 to 16.0 months due to one project in the

Dominican Republic and two in Brazil, which had been approved in 2009-2010. The average

effectiveness lag for the other six projects was a highly satisfactory 7.1 months. Including IFAD

additional financing and STF and GEF co-financing, a total of 16 financing agreements became

effective during the review period, four more than last year; their combined value amounts to

US$253 million, up from US$170 million last year.

CountryProject

IDProject

Lending

terms

Amount of

IFAD

financing

(USD '000)

Amount of

External

Financing

(USD '000)

Co-financierApproval

date

Project

status

(June 2013)

IFAD financing - new projects 88 348 38 348

Brazil 1563 DOM TÁVORA (Sergipe) O 16 000 21 Sep 12 Not Signed

Brazil 1619 PAULO FREIRE (Ceará) O 32 150 8 000 STF 21 Sep 12 Ongoing

Haiti 1532 PPI 3 DSF 13 200 348 IICA 08 Sep 12 Ongoing

Peru 1498 SIERRA Y SELVA ALTA O 19 998 21 Sep 12 Ongoing

Venezuela 1609 PROSANESU O 7 000 30 000 STF/CAF 10 Dec 12 Not Signed

GEF cofinancing 6 635

Honduras 1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE G 3 000 GEF 16 Feb 13 Not Signed

Venezuela 1292 PROSALAFA II G 3 635 GEF 27 Sep 12 Ongoing

Total 88 348 44 983



14

Table VI - Financing agreements that became effective during the review period

The number and value of financing agreements signed during the review period has also 63.increased significantly from last year, as shown in Table VII below: about US$200 million in respect of IFAD financing for 10 projects, and US$49 million for STF and GEF co-financing.

Table VII - Financing agreements signed during the review period

CountryProject

IDProject

No. of fin.

agreem.

Lending

terms

Amount

(USD '000)

Approval

date

Effectiveness

date

Completion

date

Elapsed time

to Effec.

(months)

IFAD financing - new projects (9 projects) 11 185 584 16

Brazil 1486 VIVA O SEM I ÁRIDO (Piauí) O 20 000 15 Sep 09 09 Apr 13 30 Jun 20 43

Brazil 1487 PROCASE (Paraíba) O 25 000 17 Dec 09 17 Oct 12 31 Dec 18 34

Brazil 1619 PAULO FREIRE (Ceará) O 32 150 21 Sep 12 27 Jun 13 30 Jun 19 9

Colombia 1491 TOP 1 O 30 536 03 Apr 12 13 Dec 12 31 Dec 17 8

Dominican Republic 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE O 14 000 22 Apr 10 04 Sep 12 30 Sep 18 28

Haiti 1532 PPI 3 DSF 13 200 08 Sep 12 24 Oct 12 31 Dec 17 2

Mexico 1597 LAS M IXTECAS2 O 20 700 03 Apr 12 29 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 8

Paraguay 1611 PARAGUAY INCLUSIVO O 10 000 02 Apr 12 26 Feb 13 31 Mar 18 11

Peru 1498 SIERRA Y SELVA ALTA O 19 998 21 Sep 12 20 Feb 13 31 Mar 18 5

IFAD additional financing 1 11 300 12

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL DHC 11 300 13 Dec 11 18 Dec 12 12

STF cofinancing 2 50 949 15

Colombia 1491 TOP 1 O 19 949 03 Apr 12 13 Dec 12 31 Dec 17 8

Dominican Republic 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE O 16 000 22 Apr 10 04 Sep 12 30 Sep 18 28

Mexico 1597 LAS M IXTECAS O 15 000 03 Apr 12 29 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 8

GEF cofinancing 2 5 135 12

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA G 1 500 13 Feb 12 02 May 13 31 Dec 15 15

Venezuela 1292 PROSALAFA II G 3 635 27 Sep 12 14 Jun 13 30 Jun 17 9

TOTAL 16 252 968 average 10

Financing of pro ject CO 1491 is provided under two separate financing agreements, one for the IFAD and the STF loans, the other for the IFAD grant

Financing of pro ject M E 1597 is provided under three separate financing agreements, one each for for the IFAD and the STF loans, and a third for the IFAD grant

CountryProject

IDProject

No. of fin.

agreem.

Lending

terms

Amount

(USD '000)

Approval

date

Signing

date

Signing

lag

(months)

New projects 11 189 584 14

Bolivia 1598 ACCESOS I 18 000 13 Dec 11 26 Mar 13 15

Brazil 1486 VIVA O SEM I ÁRIDO (Piauí) O 20 000 15 Sep 09 09 Apr 13 43

Brazil 1487 PROCASE O 25 000 17 Dec 09 17 Oct 12 34

Brazil 1619 PAULO FREIRE (Ceará) O 32 150 21 Sep 12 27 Jun 13 9

Colombia 1491 TOP 1 O 30 536 03 Apr 12 27 Sep 12 6

Haiti 1532 PPI 3 D 13 200 08 Sep 12 24 Oct 12 2

Mexico 1597 LAS M IXTECAS2 O 20 700 03 Apr 12 29 Nov 12 8

Paraguay 1611 PARAGUAY INCLUSIVO O 10 000 02 Apr 12 01 Aug 12 4

Peru 1498 SIERRA Y SELVA ALTA O 19 998 21 Sep 12 20 Feb 13 5

IFAD additional financing 1 11 300 7

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL DHC 11 300 13 Dec 11 05 Jul 12 7

STF cofinancing 2 42 949 8

Brazil 1619 PAULO FREIRE (Ceará) O 8 000 21 Sep 12 27 Jun 13 9

Colombia 1491 TOP 1 O 19 949 03 Apr 12 27 Sep 12 6

Mexico 1597 LAS M IXTECAS O 15 000 03 Apr 12 29 Nov 12 8

GEF cofinancing 2 5 135 12

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA G 1 500 13 Feb 12 02 May 13 15

Venezuela 1292 PROSALAFA II G 3 635 27 Sep 12 14 Jun 13 9

TOTAL 16 248 968 average 12

Financing of project CO 1491 is provided under two separate f inancing agreements, one for the IFAD and the STF loans, the other for the IFAD grant

Financing of project M E 1597 is provided under three separate f inancing agreements, one each for for the IFAD and the STF loans, and a third for the IFAD grant



15

As a result of the progress made in the finalization of pre-implementation activities, the Division 64.starts the 2013-2014 review period with a stock of approved IFAD financing pending signing or effectiveness of respective financing agreements of three projects for a combined value of US$41 million; this compares with seven projects worth US$138 million in IFAD financing last year.

Table VIII - Financing agreements not signed or signed and not effective: June 2013

Maturity of the portfolio

As shown in Table IX below, the proportion of non-effective projects dropped dramatically from 65.

25% in 2009/10 to 7% this period, due to the entry into force of nine projects. As a result, the share of

on-going projects aged less than 1.5 years increased from 18% to 29%. Extensions that were granted

to five projects (for six, nine and twelve months) did not have a significant impact on the overall

portfolio maturity, since 50% of the portfolio is aged less than three years. The rejuvenation of the

investment portfolio is further illustrated by the significant increase of the proportion of the current

portfolio aged less than five years, from 48% in June 2010 to 76% at the end of this review period.

Table IX - Age structure of current portfolio

Projects extended, completed and closed

Only three projects were completed, due to extensions approved for three projects with 66.

completion date falling in the review period. Average project duration has continued to decrease, to

eight years from nine years in 2011-2012, notwithstanding the completion of a large duration Flexible

Lending Mechanism (FLM) project (NI 1120).

Number

of

projects

%%

Cumulative

Number of

projects%

%

Cumulative

Number of

projects%

%

Cumulative

Number of

projects%

%

Cumulative

Not signed / Not effective 11 25 8 20 8 18 3 7

Ongoing 33 33 36 42

less than 1.5 year 8 18 18 7 17 17 11 25 25 13 29 29

1.5 to less than 3 years 8 18 36 11 27 44 8 18 43 8 18 47

3 to less than 5 years 5 11 48 7 17 61 9 20 64 13 29 76

5 to less than 7 years 5 11 59 2 5 66 5 11 75 5 11 87

7 years or more 7 16 75 6 15 80 3 7 82 3 7 93

Total current portfolio 44 100 41 100 44 100 45 100

2012 - 2013

Age structure

2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011 2011 - 2012



16

Table X - Projects completed during the review period

Time overruns and extensions

This year, the number of extensions granted to investment projects increased to five. With the 67.

exception of project VE 1252, extensions were granted for 12 months or less. Projects AR 1279 and

CO 1294 were extended for six months in order to ensure sustainability of beneficiary sub-projects.

Projects MX 1349, EC 1297 and VE 1252 were extended by nine, 15 and 12 months respectively, to

facilitate the consolidation and orderly winding-up of project implementation.

Table XI - Investment projects extended during the review period

As shown in Table 15 in the appendix, at the end of this review period, the investment portfolio 68.

included seven projects in time overrun, which, combined, have been extended for a length of time

equivalent to 3% of the overall duration of the investment portfolio as a whole.

Cancellations

Cancellations of IFAD financing for investment projects amounted to SDR 15.3 million. As 69.

shown in Table XII. below, 70% of this amount relates to project GT 1519, which has been cancelled

after remaining for more than two years from approval without ratification required by Guatemalan law.

Table XII - Cancellations during the review period

CountryProject

IDProject Name

IFAD

financing

(USD m)

Effectiveness

Date

Original

completion

date

Original

project

duration

(years)

Current

completion

date

Duration at

completion

(years)

No. of

extensions

Brazil 1335 GENTE DE VALOR 30.5 11 Dec 06 31 Dec 12 6 31 Dec 12 6

Guatemala 1274 OCCIDENTE 30.0 20 Oct 06 31 Dec 12 6 31 Dec 12 6

Nicaragua 1120 FAT 14.2 20 Jun 01 30 Jun 13 12 30 Jun 13 12

74.7 Average 8 8

In the

review

period

Total

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA 10 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 1 1 6 6

Colombia 1294 OPORTUNIDADES 28 Jun 07 30 Jun 13 31 Dec 13 1 1 6 6

Ecuador 1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL 25 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 30 Jun 14 1 1 9 9

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS 01 Sep 06 30 Sep 12 31 Dec 13 2 2 15 15

Venezuela 1252 PROSALAFA II 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 12 30 Sep 13 1 1 12 12

No. of

extensionsLength of

extension in

the review

period

(months)

Project

time

overrun

June 2013

(months)

CountryProject

IDProject

Effectiveness

date

Original

completion

Date

Current

completion

date

(SDR) (%)

El Salvador 579-SV 1215 PREMODER 30 Jun 12 131 965 0.8 15 Nov 12

Guatemala 518-GT 1085PRODEVER

31 Mar 12 198 141 1.8 18 Oct 12

Guatemala 812-GT 1519 QUICHE 10 850 000 100 10 Jul 13

Panama 580-PA 1199 NGOBE-BUGLE 31 Mar 12 3 639 773 30.7 31 May 13

Uruguay 555-UY 1161 URUGUAY RURAL 30 Sep 11 507 880 4.7 11 Mar 13

15 327 759 100

Project GT 1519 was cancelled due to delays in ratification by Congress of the approved financing agreement

CountryLoan

No.Project Id Project Name

Closing

Date

Cancelled AmountTransaction

Date



17

Arrears and status of suspended projects

The persistent efforts to resolve the long outstanding issue of Cuba arrears culminated in 70.

September 2012 with EB approval of an agreement on debt settlement, which was signed in October

2012. Despite the difficult economic situation in the country, which caused delays ranging from 27 to

152 days in debt service for payments during the review period, the government of Grenada has been

ensuring payment of all amounts due to IFAD. Long lasting delayed submission of the audit report

caused the suspension of project VE 1404 in February 2013.



18

IV. Current grant portfolio and operations

Characteristics A.

Current portfolio

As shown in Table XIII below, in June 2013, the current grant portfolio comprised 30 grants19

71.

with a total approved value of US$46.2 million (details in Table 17 in the appendix). This compares

with 32 grants and US$45.3 million in June 2012. For the first time, this year there was no approved

grant pending signature or effectiveness at the end of the review period.

Table XIII - Current and on-going grant portfolio 30 June 2010-2013

Grant types

As regards IFAD financed grants, the portfolio value continued to increase and reached 72.

US$21.1 million in June 2013, up from US$12.3 million in June 2010, an increase of 72% over the

past three years (see Table XIV below). It is however bound to decline in the future because grant

resources allocated to the region have drastically dropped. Despite full use by the Division of the

US$7.2 million 2012 grant allocation, the grant budget approved for the region for 2013 is only US$4

million.

Table XIV - IFAD financed on-going grants 30 June 2010-2013

Grants size

As shown in Table XIV above, the proportion of regional grants in the IFAD financed portion of 73.

the grant portfolio has remained virtually unchanged at around 75%, the bulk of it represented by

large grants. Average grant size continued to rise and reached US$1 million, or a respectable 63%

increase over the US$615,000 in June 2010. This trend is consistent with the Division’s decision to

have fewer but larger grants in order to concentrate the grant portfolio in less but more focused areas

and to facilitate and reduce the costs of managing the grant portfolio.

Maturity

Table XV below illustrates the favourable maturity status of the IFAD-financed part of the grant 74.

portfolio at the end of the review period.20

In effect in 2013, 81 %, of the portfolio is less than two

years old (up from 74% in 2012) and only one grant, down from three last year, has been effective for

three years or more. Keeping the grant implementation period short helps to contain management

costs to IFAD.

19 Including IFAD-financed grants, i.e. regional and country TAG, loan-component and DSF stand-alone grants, as well as GEF and other

externally financed grants. 20

See Table 18 in the appendix for maturity of the overall grant portfolio and external financing

2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013

Technical Assistance 17 15 13 16 10 296 12 104 13 786 16 694 606 807 1060 1043 51% 43% 37% 36%

DSF 1 2 1 0 500 1000 500 0 500 500 500 - 2% 4% 1% 0%

Loan Component 2 3 4 5 1 500 1 830 2 280 4 397 750 610 570 879 7% 7% 6% 10%

External financing 2 4 8 9 7 843 13 096 21 116 25 131 3 922 3 274 2 640 2 792 39% 47% 56% 54%

Total 22 24 26 30 20 139 28 030 37 681 46 222 915 1 168 1 449 1 541 100% 100% 100% 100%

Relative weight(USD '000) (USD '000)Grant type

No. of grantsAmount Average

2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013

Large Regional 7 9 8 8 7 573 10 203 12 040 13 750 1 082 1 134 1 505 1 719 62% 68% 73% 65%

Large Country 4 3 4 3 2 680 2 330 2 280 3 617 670 777 570 1 206 22% 16% 14% 17%

Sub-total Large Grants 11 12 12 11 10 253 12 533 14 320 17 367 932 1 044 1 193 1 579 83% 84% 86% 82%

Small Regional 6 2 3 6 1 443 694 996 2 194 241 347 332 366 12% 5% 6% 10%

Small Country 3 6 3 4 600 1 707 1 250 1 530 200 285 417 383 5% 11% 8% 7%

Sub-total Small Grants 9 8 6 10 2 043 2 401 2 246 3 724 227 300 374 372 17% 16% 14% 18%

Total 20 20 18 21 12 296 14 934 16 566 21 091 615 747 920 1 004 100% 100% 100% 100%

Grant typeNo. of grants

Amount AverageRelative weight

(USD '000) (USD '000)



19

Table XV - Maturity of current IFAD-financed grant portfolio June 2012-2013

Strategic orientation of the grant portfolio

As shown in Table 19 in the appendix, which presents the distribution of the 19 on-going IFAD-75.

financed grant projects21

by grant policy output22

, the Lessons Learning and Knowledge Management

and Innovative Activities area predominates in the regional grant portfolio, followed by Advocacy and

Policy Dialogue.

In 2011, in response to the Revised Grant Policy for Grant Financing, the Division developed a 76.

Grant Strategic Work Plan (DSWP) for the 2011-2013 three-year period. This plan is based on the

recognition that grants serve strategic purposes as they can catalyse processes that help and are

supportive of IFAD’s mission in the region. Chart IV below shows the evolution of the regional grants

portfolio by thematic area. Two themes stand out while analysing the regional grants that were and

will be approved under the current LAC DSWP. Out of nearly US$18 million (including the 2013

pipeline), US$6.5 million (i.e. 36%) are allocated to four grants that concentrate on the Young Rural

People with a Special Focus on Women thematic area, while US$6.3 million (i.e. 35%) are allocated

to five grants that focus on the area of Policy Processes on Rural Poverty and Development. These

areas are indeed particularly relevant in the context of region as the majority of the countries are

classified as middle-income countries but still experience high level of inequality.

Four grants dealing with Entrepreneurial Young Rural People, with a Special Focus on Young 77.

Women are: grants 1385-UN Women (approved in August 2012) that aims at strengthening and

broadening economic and financial opportunities for rural women in Central America; grant 1369-

ACUA (approved in May 2012), which advocates for the reduction of structural poverty affecting Afro-

descendant population, focusing on young and women particularly in the Andean sub-region and in

Brazil; grant 1305-Procasur (approved in August 2011) that promotes young people's

entrepreneurship in poor rural areas in several countries of Central and South America; and grant

1250-IEP called Nuevas Trenzas, which aimed at understanding the nature and drivers of gender

inequalities in Latin America, and at providing empirical evidence on the type of public policies and

rural development interventions that can help to foster social inclusion of poor young women. In

addition, a small regional grant (for US$0.25 million) currently under preparation, will work in fostering

inclusion of rural youth in investment operations by identifying and supporting the implementation of

products and services that suit their aspirations and life strategies.

The regional portfolio has been growing in the area of Policy Processes on Rural Poverty and 78.

Development and there are currently four on-going grants: two large grants, namely 1326-CLAEH and

1371-UNIANDES, which were approved in November 2011 and May 2012 respectively, and two small

grants (1415-ICEFI and 1428-CEPAL, both approved in December 2012). Three of them focus on the

provision of evidenced-based analysis and inputs for the formulation of public policy and for feeding

dialogue on issues relevant to rural development, such as the synergies between conditional cash

transfer and rural development programmes in the case of grant 1373-Uniandes; the role of fiscal

policy in rural development (1415-ICEFI) and the relevance of rural development and food security

21 Excluding GEF and loan component grants. 22 IFAD’s grant policy, outlines four outputs that IFAD-financed grants should be aligned with: (i) Innovative activities promoted and innovative

technologies and approaches developed in support of IFAD‘s target group; (ii) Awareness, advocacy and policy dialogue on issues of importance

to poor rural people promoted by, and on behalf of, this target group; (iii) Capacity of partner institutions strengthened to deliver a range of

services in support of poor rural people; and (iv) Lesson learning, knowledge management and dissemination of information on issues related to

rural poverty reduction promoted among stakeholders within and across regions.



20

indicators in policy design (1428-CEPAL). Grant 1326-CLAEH is directly facilitating public policy

dialogue on family farming and food security issues in the Southern Cone. In addition, the most

recently approved large grant (1449-RIMISP) will promote policy process for large-scale impact and

facilitate evidence-based policy to support policy and institutional changes that create more conducive

environments for the rural poor to overcome poverty.

Chart IV - Grants approved in 2011-2013 by thematic areas

Approvals and pre-implementation activities

Five grants, with a combined value of US$7.3 million, have been approved during the review 79.

period, considerably less than the 17 grants and US$21.2 million approved in the 2011-2012 period.

This was caused by the drop of the divisional grant allocation noted above. All five grants approved

since July 2012 and five of the six grants that were pending effectiveness at the end of the last review

period became effective during this review period. The sixth grant, a loan component grant for

investment project GT 1519, was cancelled in conjunction with the cancellation of the main project. As

noted above, the Division starts the upcoming review period without any approved grant in need for

additional action to make it effective.

The overall average effectiveness lag of 7.9 months during this review period was considerably 80.

above the average of the last review periods. In the case of TAG grants, this was due to protracted

post-approval negotiations with the recipients of grants TAG-1303 and TAG-1385 in order to finalise

the agreements. Four other grants, two GEF-financed and two loan component grants, show

effectiveness lags of three months or more. Although GEF grants tend to take longer to become

effective than TAG grants, the delay was unusually long (16.5 months) in the case of grant GEF-FSP-

024-PA. The lesson learned here is that the Division should try to do better in completing pre-

implementation arrangements, including preparation by the recipient and IFAD’s review and

endorsement of the first AWPB, before the grant is submitted for approval.

Grant disbursement

At the end of the review period, seven of the ten IFAD-financed large TAG grants showed a 81.

disbursement percentage below the percentage of time elapsed since effectiveness date. Three of

them (TAG-1369-ACUA, TAG-1373-UNIANDES and TAG-1250-IEP) had submitted withdrawal

applications, during before the end of June and these were expected to be approved shortly. Grant



21

COFIN-SP-16-IICA has experienced delays because of a combination of unexpected complexity in

engaging a vast array of civil society organisations in the envisaged highly participatory approach to

project implementation, compounded by grant recipient cumbersome administrative regulations.

With 75% of its three-year original implementation period elapsed, grant TAG-1256-82.

AGEXPORT had disbursed only 28% of its US$2 million by June 2013. The considerable slow-down

of project implementation was attributed to design shortcomings. The Guatemala-based CPM has

been pursuing intensive discussions with the grant recipient, in coordination with the managers of the

investment projects in the four Central American participating countries, to make adjustments required

for implementation to pick up.

In the case of TAG 1303 and TAG-1385, which became effective in June and April 2013 83.

respectively, both with a considerable effectiveness lag, the Division should pay special attention to

preventing further prolongation of the delay in the start-up of implementation. The same degree of

interest should be devoted to GEF financed grant in Panama (GEF-FSP-24), approved in February

2012 that reached effectiveness only in June 2013.

Extensions

Four grant projects23

that were due for completion during the review period have been 84.

extended. This compares with three extensions last year and five in 2010-2011. Implementation was

fully successful for both TAG-1250 and TAG-1344. The small TAG-1250 country grant tested

innovative activities and approaches aimed at helping to foster social inclusion of poor young women.

The small TAG-1344, which is directed at helping access by the rural poor to climate finance and

carbon markets, has implemented activities as planned to achieve its envisaged outcomes. These two

grants have been extended by four and seven months respectively to facilitate wider dissemination

and stronger appropriation by stakeholders of project results. Grant TAG-1346 has been extended to

take advantage of new financing opportunities that emerged during implementation. As for grant

COFIN-SP-16-IICA, which, as noted above, experiences a significant implementation delay, a

substantial 33-months extension has been approved to enable alignment of its implementation

schedule with investment projects in North-east Brazil that, as noted above, required a longer than

expected pre-implementation period following approval.

Completion

Implementation of six grant projects has been completed during the period under review, three 85.

of which were also financially closed before the end of the review period (see Table 23 in the

appendix). Amounts undisbursed at the end of the review period for these six projects, amounting to a

total of US$200,357, or 3% of their combined grant amount, are expected to be disbursed upon

review and approval of final statements of expenditure and audit reports, in conformity with IFAD

procedures.

Closing and cancellations

During the review period, the Division continued to intensify efforts towards closing completed 86.

grant projects on time or with minimum delays. A total of 14 grants have been closed since July 2012

(see Table 24 in appendice), compared with four in 2011-2012. The average delay in grant closing

went down significantly from 11 months last year to four months in this review period. Nevertheless,

as only one of the six grants that showed overdue closing dates in June 2012 could be closed, the

forthcoming 2013-2104 period starts with ten grants with overdue closing dates. Given the status of

fulfilment of grant closure requirements in June 2013 (Table 25 in the appendix), all these grants could

be closed before the end of 2013, provided that CPM and Finance Officers take a pro-active approach

in assisting recipients to comply with IFAD closure requirements, which are not always fully

understood by all grant recipients.

23

Grants TAG-1250, TAG 1344, TAG 1346 and COFIN-SP-16-IICA



22

Grant implementation performance B.

Performance scores of on-going grants, presented in Table 26 in the appendix, indicate 87.

Disbursement and Quality and Timeliness of Financial Reports as areas of relatively lower

performance. Grant recipients have experienced continued difficulties in providing annual audit

reports that fulfil IFAD requirements and / or in complying with IFAD deadlines. This is a persistent

issue that has been at the origin of significant closure delays. This problem could be mitigated by

undertaking simplified financial management capacity assessments during the design of large grants,

and by providing all grant recipients with comprehensive information on IFAD financial reporting

requirements and withdrawal and audit procedures. This could be assisted by a simple manual on

grant financial management and reporting that the Division believes CFS could prepare within a

relatively short time. Disbursement issues confronted by grant projects experiencing disbursement

delays have been noted above under this same section.

Linkages to the investment portfolio and knowledge management C.

The Division will continue to pursue efforts in the knowledge management of its grant portfolio. 88.

Grants are an integral part of the regional and country programme strategies and the Division intends

to focus on the use of innovations, lessons learned and knowledge products generated by the grant

portfolio for feeding the investment portfolio. This could be done by making grant design documents

more explicit about knowledge management-related objectives, targets, progress measurement, and

products. Grant design documents could also be more explicit on the envisaged methodology to

facilitate uptake of lessons learned and experience by IFAD staff, country and regional programmes

stakeholders, and policy makers. Conceiving grants as catalysts of broader, innovative and scalable

processes, could contribute to greater impact on poverty reduction of the portfolio as whole. However,

the Division recognises that process of transition is not automatic and needs to be conceptualized,

planned, managed and supported on its own. In view of this, the Division has been organising

seminars and workshops to share results and knowledge gained from the grant programme among

IFAD staff and partners in the region. Three new workshops are scheduled for the second semester of

2013 on different grant initiatives and themes: on the new profile of young rural women in the 21st

century (mainly related to TAG-1250-IEP); on policy processes to share the experience of two

successful regional policy dialogue grants (TAG-1326-CLAEH and TAG-1203-RIMISP); and on youth

to share experience gained in the region under grants TAG 1305-PROCASUR and 1250-IEP.

Lessons learned D.

At a general level, one of the main lessons learned from IFAD´s grant portfolio in LAC is that, 89.

although they generate concrete actions in the short term – e.g. first year of operations –, knowledge,

systematization and potential uses in the lending portfolio must be understood as a medium term

process. Hence the importance of maintaining a regular process of grant origination as a way to

create a more regular flow of knowledge to feed the Division with sound analytical and operational

inputs on strategic issues for rural development.

Some of the lessons that are beginning to distil from the on-going grant programme include the 90.

following:

i. Grant TAG 1250-IEP and 1305-PROCASUR: from the findings of both grants it is possible to

conclude that there is a clear need to incorporate from early design phases of lending

operations an updated diagnostic of specific population subgroups such as rural women and

rural youth. This should help in the identification of relevant components and activities such as

increased access to information technology, financial services beyond credit, capacity building

for the development of rural non-farm enterprises, strategies for greater and better participation

in rural labour markets with higher value added, among others. The experience of TAG-1250-

IEP has revealed the importance of having a good communication strategy built in from the

outset.



23

ii. Grant TAG-1373 UNIANDES: this large regional grant, although in its early stages of

implementation, has revealed a lot of interest from different stakeholders (government officials,

academia, international organizations, and rural population). The intersection between the

target groups of public spending in productive activities as well as in social safety nets are one

of the main topics of discussion in the region. It has revealed the need and possibility of sharing

targeting tools and strategies for both types of spending as in the case of records of

beneficiaries (registros de beneficiarios) or in measurement through household surveys. Finally,

at the household level, this grant project has the potential to generate proposals to increase the

usefulness and efficiency that may have public spending for productive purposes versus those

more liquid transfers coming from social protection schemes.

iii. Grant TAG-1203 has helped to expand IFAD dialogue and outreach to decision-makers, civil

society and private sector agents in Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador, by testing and developing

a new policy dialogue model. Experience showed that it is possible to see how the impact of

IFAD-like operations can be far greater if development projects are supported and

complemented by pro-active and systematic policy dialogue processes. This policy dialogue

can seek to make specific direct contributions to policy and institutional changes that can foster

a more enabling environment for the rural poor and for rural development. Another lesson

learned from this grant is that credibility and effectiveness of policy processes rest on the

broadness and legitimacy of their participants, on the quality of the evidence they use to

diagnose problems and develop alternatives, and on keeping a skilful balance between

independence from government and engagement with decision and policy makers. This grant

has shown that, in order to contribute to policy change, a long time is needed just to ensure

commitment and build confidence between different actors with different interests and

expectations.



24

V. Management performance of on-going portfolio

Project management A.

Average scores for Quality of Project Management remained virtually unchanged from last year 91.

(Table 27 in the Appendix). It is noteworthy the considerable higher number of projects included in this

year’s review, 41 compared with 35 last year, 33 in 2010 and 2011 and 29 in 2009. This is an

illustration of the expansion of the regional portfolio over the last few years

Overall, the increase from 27 to 32 in the number of projects rated 4 or more was partly offset 92.

by one project more than last scored 3 or less; and the proportion of projects rated moderately

satisfactory or better has increased marginally from 77% to 78%. Quality of project management is a

determinant factor of project performance and it is worth to review briefly the eight projects24

rated 3

and the ninth25

rated 2 in this indicator.

Management performance of project AR 1610 has assessed as unsatisfactory by the latest 93.

supervision mission carried out in May 2013 due to delays in the process of incorporation of

participating provinces, only three about 18 months after entry into force.

BO 1490 which has a short implementation period of only four years experienced a protracted 94.

recruitment process of key personnel that was only completed in the second semester of 2012, more

than one year after entry into force. The first supervision mission carried out in April 2013 reported

that although some progress had been made in the establishment of regional offices most of the other

recommendations agreed at the start-up workshop held in November 2012 had not been

implemented.

DO 1479 and DO 1533 are jointly managed by a project executing unit established in the 95.

Ministry of Agriculture. Project DO 1479, effective since May 2010, still shows limited results on the

ground; this was initially due to delayed fulfilment of disbursement conditions but little progress has

been made since the first disbursement was effected in January 2012. DO 1533 is effective since

September 2012 but besides a small US$50,000 advance no other pre-implementation activities have

been undertaken to date. Both projects are classed as actual-problem-project. The major apparent

bottleneck is the lack of minimum budgetary allocations required. The Division has provided intensive

implementation support, including four missions since October 2012, without visible results. There

seems to be a low level of ownership of IFAD financed operations within the Ministry of Agriculture.

The MTR for project DO 1479 that is scheduled for Q III 2013 will assess the prospects of country

portfolio and recommend measures that may include its restructuring.

Project ES 1568 is effective since June 2012 and is classified as actual-problem-project. No 96.

activity could be undertaken in 2012 due to the lack of budgetary allocation for the project. The

recruitment process of six key staff started in February 2013 but three of the selected candidates

including the Director declined the job offers. Implementation can only start upon selection of an agent

responsible for the procurement and the financial administration of the project. In April 2013, the

Government decided to undertake a competitive selection process that was yet to be launched at the

end of the current review period. There is a risk that progress towards completing the pre-

implementation activities may be jeopardised since 2013 is a pre-electoral year in view of presidential

elections to be held in February 2014. The CPM, based in the Guatemala country office, is closely

following up of developments, including by holding meetings twice a month, to facilitate acceleration of

the pre-implementation processes.

Implementation of project GD 1569 continued to experience problems and slowed down 97.

considerably during the review period. The PMU is undergoing a renewal process following the

resignation of key staff and the decision of the government to not renew the contract of the

24

AR 1610, BO 1490, DO 1479, DO 1533, ES 1568, GD 1569, GT 1274 and PA 1389 25

VE 1404



25

inadequate project manager. A recent supervision mission agreed on a number of recommendations

for action to be undertaken by the borrower, including to address the chronic management

deficiencies and to fill the vacant positions with qualified staff. Progress will be monitored during the

next mission, scheduled for November 2013.

In the three years since becoming effective, project PA 1389 disbursed less than US$1 million, 98.

a negligible amount even considering the small size (US$4.2 million) of the IFAD loan in support of the

project. Although the last supervision mission (May 2013) observed some progress in the

implementation of production sub-projects, it reported constraints in market access surpluses and a

high sustainability risk. This project has been downgraded to actual-problem status, from potential-

problem last year. The MTR review for this project, scheduled for the last quarter of 2013, will revisit

the project implementation plan to take into account the better understanding of the project context

and the problems experienced since the beginning of implementation.

The status of projects GT 1274, which left the portfolio on the original completion date last 99.

December, and of VE 1404, both classed as actual-problem-project last year, are quite particular and

will be discussed further down in the subsequent sections of this report.

Disbursement performance B.

Disbursements to the region during the period under review have declined to US$68 million 100.

from US$77.8 million, a reduction of US$11.5 million, or 15%. This fall is partly explained by a

significantly decrease in disbursements for three projects (AR 1098, AR 1610 and BR 1335), which,

combined, amount to US$15.3 million. Project AR 1098, which was completed in December 2011,

disbursed US$6.2 million in 2011-2012 and only a residual amount of less than US$100,000 in the

current period. Project BR 1335, completed in December 2012, which had disbursed US$6.7 million in

2011-2012, disbursed only US$1 million in 2012-2013 because most of the expenditures submitted

were applied to recover the large special account advance of US$5 million. Whereas project AR 1610

did not require to replenish its special account during the current review period as it had received a

large US$3.5 million advance in June 2012. The above highlights the high dependence of overall

disbursement levels on few projects in the LAC region.

Chart V - Disbursement by sub-region 2008-2012

Notwithstanding 101.

the above decrease in

the amounts disbursed,

the overall regional

disbursement lag26

remained unchanged

from last period at -8%

(see Chart V beside

and Table 28 in the

appendix). The Andean

and the Southern Cone

sub-regions maintained

actual disbursement

levels well above

expected disbursement,

albeit by a smaller

margin: 37% compared

to 38% for the Andean

region, and 127%

compared with 129%

for the Southern Cone. The MCAC sub-region continued to lag behind expected disbursement and

showed a disbursement lag of 10% in June 2013, slightly above the 8% in June 2012.

26

The disbursement lag is the ratio actual disbursement / expected disbursement calculated from the IFAD disbursement model

87%

92%

102%

129%

137%

82% 83% 83%

88%

92% 89%

106% 110%

133% 136%

138%

127%

86%

90%

93%

100%

109% 108%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Jun-11 Jun-12 Jun-13

Exp

ect

ed

dis

bu

rse

me

nt

Southern Cone

Mesoamerica & Caribbean

Andean countries

LAC overall



26

Actual disbursement is below expected disbursement in seven countries27

(out of 19), of which 102.

six are located in the MCAC sub-region. While disbursement lags reached significant levels in the

Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Panama (62%, 55% and 26%, respectively), Paraguay and Peru

display excellent disbursement ratios, showing actual disbursements in excess of expected

disbursements by 85% and 52% respectively. Other countries with relatively large portfolios and

positive ratios include Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador and Haiti.

Project-by-project analysis (see Table 28 in the appendix) reveals that 16 projects, out of 40 103.

that had been effective for more than six months in June 2013, show a disbursement lag in June

2013. Three are located in the Andean sub region, one in the Southern Cone and 12 in the MCA sub

region; i.e., in this sub-region, about half (52%), of the 23 on-going projects that had been effective for

more than six months show a disbursement lag in June 2013. The same proportion in the Andean and

Southern Cone sub regions is 28% and 15% respectively.

The overall disbursement prospects look favourable as the large majority (10 out of 16 or 63%) 104.

of projects showing a disbursement lag have been effective for less than three years, and only one

project effective for more than five years - MX 1349 - experiences a disbursement lag, at a relatively

low level of 5%. This project is not a matter for concern as it has been displaying an impressive

disbursement performance since June 2009 when its disbursement was at a very high 72%. In effect,

its annual disbursements have jumped from US$1.8 million in 2008-2009 to US$6.9 million in 2012-

2013, and is expected to disburse its loan June 2014 when the closing date expires.

Table XVI below shows five projects that have contributed to depress overall levels of 105.

disbursement to the region. Combined, they disbursed slightly more than US$5 million in 2012-2013,

compared with about US$15 million originally planned annual disbursement amounts. Increased

disbursement performance of these projects could make a significant contribution to increase the flow

of financial resources to the region, MCAC in particular where four of them are located.

Table XVI - Disbursement performance of slow disbursing projects

27

Belize, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama

Project ID DO 1479 EC 1354 GT 1317 HN 1535 NI 1380

Age (years from entry into force) at 30

June 20133.1 2.3 4.6 2.4 4.9

Disbursement performance rating 2012 3 4 3 5 6

Disbursement performance rating 2013 2 3 3 4 4

2011 disbursement lag 100% 100% -9% 30%

2012 disbursement lag 57% -5% 31% -25%

2013 disbursement lag 55% 46% 36% 13% -37%

IFAD financing (SDR m) 9.5 8.2 11.35 6.65 13.23

Undisbursed June 2013 (SDR m) 8.3 7.4 7.9 5.6 8.7

Undisbursed percentage 2013 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7

Planned aver. annual disburs. (SDR m) 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.0 3.0

Historic aver. annual disburs. to June 2013

(SDR m)0.4 0.3 0.8 0.4 2.5

2011-2012 disbursement (SDR m) 0.7 0.8 0.1 1.8

2012-2013 disbursement (SDR m) 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.7

Future aver. annual disburs. required to

disburse fully (SDR m)2.4 1.7 2.9 1.3 3.2

Future required / historic disbursement ratio 6.2 5.2 3.9 3.1 1.3

Loan effectiveness date May-10 Mar-11 Dec-08 Feb-11 Aug-08

Current loan closing date Dec-16 Sep-17 Jun-15 Sep-17 Mar-16



27

AND MCAC SC Total

BR 1486 Piaui 17 Dec 09 17 Oct 12 25 000 25 000

BO 1598 Accesos 13 Dec 11 18 000 18 000

PY 1611 P. inclusivo 02 Apr 12 26 Feb 03 12 016 12 016

CO 1491 TOP 03 Apr 12 13 Dec 12 30 536 30 536

MX 1597 Mixtecas 03 Apr 12 29 Nov 12 18 700 18 700

BR 1619 Ceará 21 Sep 12 27 Jun 13 32 150 32 150

BR 1563 Sergipe 21 Sep 12 16 000 16 000

PE 1498 S.&S. alta 21 Sep 12 20 Feb 13 19 998 19 998

HT 1532 PPI III 08 Sep 12 24 Oct 12 13 200 13 200

VE 1609 Prosanesu 10 Dec 12 7 000 7 000

Total 75 534 31 900 85 166 192 600

Project IDProject

acronym

Approval

date

Effectiness

date

IFAD financing (USD'000)

Table XVII - Current IFAD financed portfolio: approved not disbursing projects

Ten other projects 106.

that are yet to start

disbursing (see Table

XVII beside), and have a

combined value of

US$192.6 million,

equivalent to almost 30%

of the regional current

portfolio value, are

expected to make a

significant contribution to

increase the level of

disbursements to the

region, seven of them

during the second

semester of 2012 as they

were already effective

last June. The effect in the MCAC would be relatively less significant because only two of the projects,

with a relatively small combined amount of US$31.9 million, are located in this sub-region. This raises

the importance of efforts to improve the disbursement of already disbursing projects in the MCAC sub-

region.

Counterpart funding C.

Insufficient allocation of fiscal space either to access available external financing or to release 107.

government funds, or both, represented a major constraint to implementation progress and to

disbursement levels during the period under review. The overall rating for this indicator as at June

2013 is 4.1, down from 4.6 last year. This problem is heavily concentrated in the MCAC sub-region

where 12 of the 13 projects rated unsatisfactory are located. The country programmes most affected

by this problem are those in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala (although not a factor of

underperformance as the paralysis of the projects has other reasons), Honduras and Panama. The

only project outside MCAC that confronted a significant shortage of counterpart funding is project PY

1333 that did not receive, during the review period, US$1 million necessary to finance beneficiary sub-

projects approved in 2012 that should have received funding in early 2013 to enable completion by

September 2013.

Financial management D.

This year, PSR ratings for the quality of financial management and timeliness and quality of 108.

audit have been assigned by finance officers. This was done in agreement with the CPM and

benefitted from increased interaction between finance officers and CPM throughout the review period,

including the review of audit reports and project financial management capacity assessments and

during the preparation and/or review of findings of supervision and implementation support missions.

The changes in the scores of some projects from last year could reflect possible differences in the

application of the assessment criteria and better ability of finance officers to ensure consistent rating

across regional portfolios.

The overall average rating of quality of financial management remained unchanged at 4.1; as 109.

did the proportion of projects rated satisfactory at 75% of the projects scored (see Table 35 in

appendix). However, this year three projects were rated 2 or less. In the case of GT 1274 the score 2

resulted from significant delays in the process that should have enabled closure of the project and

IFAD loan account by end-of June 2013; the deadline was not respected and an informal extension up

to 15 August granted by CFS is unlikely to be sufficient to complete the process despite heavy support

from the IFAD country team. Project HT 1275 continues to confront persistent financial management



28

problems. These stem from the qualification of project FM staff and the weakness of in-country

internal control systems. At the end of the review period the installation of the accounting system

software was yet to be made and the 2011-2012 audit report was overdue by more than 90 days. The

situation is expected to improve during the forthcoming review period following two missions by the

CFS finance officer to the country, the replacement of the project financial manager and the decision

to contract additional consultants to intensify the implementation support to this project. Project VE

1404 scored 1 because of the extreme weakness of its FM recording and management system that

led to the inability to deliver the audit reports to IFAD. This project is under suspension since 1

February 2013.

This year’s quality of Financial Management scores of projects rated 4 or better show a 110.

considerable improvement reflected in the increase of the proportion of projects rated 5 from 18% to

33%. The number of projects rated 5 increased to 12 from five last year, including seven projects

upgraded from rating 4 last year. Three other projects have been upgraded from moderately

unsatisfactory to moderately satisfactory. Audit ratings also show considerable improvement,

evidenced by the increase from 80% to 88% of the proportion of projects rated 4 or better.

The application of the new risk-based disbursement framework introduced by CFS last year has 111.

been improved during the review period through an increasing number of project capacity

assessments and interaction between the finance officers on the one side and CPM and LAC

implementation support consultants on the other. As shown in Table XVIII below, it is noticeable that

the number of low risk projects in the region rose to 24, or 55% of the 44 rated projects, from 17

(43%) last year. Four projects28

have been upgraded from medium to low risk. The proportion of high

risk projects has increased from 8% to 11% due to the chronic financial management risk situation in

Panama and across the country programme in Haiti, where the number of projects increased to three,

and the problems confronted by project VE 1404 reported above.

Table XVIII - Financial management risk ratings - 2012-2013

Loan administration E.

Significant improvements have been made during the review period also on the loan 112.

administration front. The new workflow for the review and approval of withdrawal applications has

been consolidated and operated smoothly, mainly thanks to close communication across divisions;

raised SOE thresholds (see below); efficient work of the LAC implementation support consultants on

hands-on training of project staff and answering to queries and following up on outstanding issues;

and the diligence of LAC, CFS and Treasury professional and support staff. Two other easing factors

were the slightly higher average amount of withdrawal applications and the reduced number and

amount of withdrawal applications processed contributed to the lower level of disbursements to the

region this year. The above resulted in a further decrease in the average number of days required to

process a WA from 13 to 10.

28

Projects BZ 1456, GY 1415, PY 1333, and VE 1252

FM risk rating

No. of

projects%

No. of

projects%

Low Risk 17 43% 24 55%

Medium Risk 20 50% 15 34%

High Risk 3 8% 5 11%

Sub-total 40 100% 44 100%

Not rated 4 1

Total current portfolio 44 45 100%

June 2012 June 2013



29

Table XIX - Withdrawal application processing data by review period

There is scope to continue to improve the efficiency of WA processing. As shown in Table 30 in 113.

the Appendix, the minimum number of days required was 6 (in one country only); it could be reduced

by at least two means: faster notification of CPM approval when the implementation support

consultant who assists the CPM in the review under his responsibility receives an e-copy of the WA

forwarded to Rome; and faster turn round time from Registry to Treasury through CFS.

Another key factor to reduce processing times is the SOE threshold defined for the project. 114.

There has been improvement also on this front as evidenced in Table 31 in the Appendix that shows

an increase from 17 to 27 of the number of projects that are not required to attach supporting

documentation for expenditures up to US$100,000, including 13 projects, up from eight last year, that

are exempted from submitting supporting documents. SOE thresholds should be revised on a

continuing basis taking into account supervision findings, assessment of the quality of WA, unaudited

project financial statements and audit reports, and project financial management capacity

assessments that should be updated at least once a year. As the proportion of projects assessed for

financial management capacity in the region increases, it is expected that the simplification of

disbursement procedures will be deepened while ensuring all required safeguards.

It should be possible to reduce the average processing time for the LAC region also by 115.

addressing the causes of delayed processing in countries that show an above average processing

time, such as the Dominican Republic (14 days), Guyana (15 days), Haiti (20 days) and Panama (29

days).

The extraordinary long delay in Panama was due to inadequate documentation provided for the 116.

only WA submitted during the reporting period. Although there is currently one and small sized project

in Panama, the Division should find ways of intensifying implementation support to the country

programme.

Processing time for Haiti WA remained high due to deficiencies in supporting documentation, 117.

ineligible expenditures and high-risk ratings that entail low SOE thresholds and in-depth review of

documentation submitted, and frequent need for follow up with a slow response from projects. Haiti is

the country with the largest number of WA in the region, averaging 30 per year, and suffers from weak

governance and institutional bottlenecks. During the review the Division took a number of initiatives to

strengthen its capacity to address the problems confronted by the country programme, including the

out-posting of the CPM to Port-au-Prince.

In close coordination with the Division, the Finance Officer carried out two missions to Haiti to 118.

refine and update the financial management capacity assessment, identify problems and risks and

discuss them with relevant authorities, and provide guidance to project personnel and the IFAD

country team. During her second mission, the Finance Officer assisted the CPM in the selection of

qualified consultants to provide implementation support to IFAD financed projects in Haiti.

CFS involvement will continue to be required in the forthcoming period to provide continuing 119.

support to project staff and the IFAD country team, including the recently selected consultants, and to

help in the coordination with the IDB and the World Bank that have engaged the Ministry of Agriculture

in an initiative to establish a dedicated unit responsible for the financial management and the

procurement of externally financed investment projects under its responsibility.

During the period under review, the Division and CFS joined efforts also to attempt to resolve 120.

some long-outstanding issues. This included the long delay in refunding IFAD of the unjustified

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Amount WA processed (USD '000) 60 684 69 425 81 396 73 395

No. of WA processed 129 163 209 182

WA average amount (USD '000) 470 426 389 403

Average processing time (days ) 29 25 13 10



30

balance of the authorised allocation for projects BO 1145, PA 1199 and UY 1161, which were overdue

since March 2011 for the project in Bolivia and since March 2012 for the projects in Panama and

Uruguay. The loan accounts for the projects in Panama and Uruguay have been closed during the

review period. However, for project BO 1145 it is yet to be closed despite continued action by the

Finance Officer and the LAC country team, because the overdue refund is pending the conclusion of a

protracted internal audit conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Another priority within the collaboration with CFS concerned the problems confronted by the 121.

country programme in Guatemala. The Finance Officer has participated in a mission carried out in

October 2012 to assess the situation of project GT 1274 and make recommendations for action by

IFAD, and has since been closely involved in and supporting the process that should enable IFAD to

close the loan account, which, despite the complexity of the problems, is now expected for Q III of

2013, within 90 days of its closing date.

The Finance Officer responsible for the coordination of the CFS team in charge of the LAC 122.

portfolio has also participated in the annual divisional retreat held in Colombia in April 2013. This

granted a unique opportunity to meet all LAC staff, including the large proportion of out posted

personnel and the key divisional implementation support consultants, and gain first-hand knowledge

of the strengths and weaknesses of IFAD country programmes in the region. One full day of the

retreat has been devoted to a seminar where the Finance Officer led the presentation and the

discussion of IFAD financial management strategy, guidelines and procedures. A number of

agreements were made during this seminar with a view to strengthen inter-divisional coordination,

especially with regard to capacity assessments, supervision and implementation support, project

financial management and audit performance ratings and audit related procedures.

During the forthcoming period, the Division and CFS should place emphasis on a number of 123.

areas, which include earlier and fuller involvement of Finance Officers in project design processes,

expansion of the coverage and depth of FM capacity assessments, increased CFS contribution to the

project supervision and implementation support processes, and the promotion of accounting and audit

standards compatible with international best practice and the improvement of private auditor selection

processes.

Most of the activities required to fulfil the above aims are related to in-country processes that 124.

LAC has been supporting through out-posted staff and specialised local consultants that can be easily

found in the region. This is being done with a double advantage. First, it allows tapping the in-depth

local knowledge of experts based in the region. Second, the cost-benefit ratio is high, since local

consultant fees are often below international levels and travel costs can be contained as travel is done

within the region.

The Division recognises that, given the relatively healthy status of IFAD portfolio in LAC on 125.

fiduciary terms and the progress already made since the Division took up the responsibility for direct

supervision in 2009, additional gains would be relatively limited, but could be maximised if continues

action takes place in the field, in the proximity of the institutions and the people. This would also

reduce the cost to IFAD since overseas travelling for CFS staff to visit countries in Latin America

would be avoided.

The comparatively more developed institutional frameworks and sounder country systems 126.

found in Latin America could also constitute a learning ground for CFS, resulting in better knowledge

and experience exchanges that could be disseminated elsewhere.

Procurement F.

Since the introduction of direct supervision, CPM and implementation support consultants 127.

became increasingly familiar with IFAD procurement procedures and therefore better able to provide

higher quality guidance to project staff on the planning and implementation of procurement activities.

This was facilitated by increased awareness of the importance of timely and quality procurement of

goods and especially of consulting services for successful project implementation, which also led to

improved oversight of procurement plan review and prior and ex-post reviews of procurement



31

documentation. As a result, a large proportion of projects (85%, or 35 over 41 projects reviewed)

scored moderately satisfactory or better on this indicator, including four that upgraded from

moderately unsatisfactory last year. Six projects29

rated moderately satisfactory or less, all, with

exception of project PA 1389, due to inefficiency and delays in procurement activities that might delay

project implementation but do not violate IFAD requirements.

Compliance with financing covenants G.

The number of projects rated 3 or less increased to eight from three last year, including two 128.

rated 1: Project GT 1274 because of the unilateral decision to replace the lead project agency and

project VE 1404 for the non-compliance with audit requirements that led to the suspension of the

project. The two projects (HT 1275 and HT 1532) under the Ministry of Agriculture in Haiti were rated

3 because of the persistent delay in installing an adequate accounting software for the IFAD financed

projects; whereas project PA 1389 has scored consistently low on this indicator because of the above

mentioned persistent obliviousness of IFAD procurement regulations; project GT 1317 due to the

lasting lack of reversal of the mistaken deliberation to transfer the project to another lead agency. The

two other projects rated 3 are project ES 1568 and ME 1597, both due to the lack of fiscal space (in

2012 for the project in El Salvador and in 2013 for the Mexico project), which resulted in in both cases

in significant delays to start up implementation.

Audit H.

As shown in Table 32 in the Appendix, 22 audit reports (out of 33 due by June 2013, or 67%) 129.

had been received by end-July 2013, of which 11 (50%) were received before 30 June; one of these,

for project HT 1171, was received late but within 90 days of due date. The rate of timely delivery of

audit reports this year is marginally below 2012 when, out of 31 reports due, 16 (or 52%) were

received by 30 June and 22 (71%) by end-July. The 12 audit reports overdue as at 30 July concern

projects CO 1294, DO 1479, EC 1354, GT 1274, GT 1317, GT 1473, HT 1275, ME 1349, ME 1412, NI

1380 and VE 1404. Receipt of nine of these is expected before the end of September i.e. within 90

days from due date. Dates for the delivery of audit reports for projects GT 1317, GT 1473 and VE

1404 are less certain given the problems afflicting these projects as mentioned above.

CFS plays the leading role in the audit process by tracking the timeliness of auditor’s selection, 130.

reviewing auditor TOR and audit reports, providing advice on the quality of financial reporting and

auditor’s performance, as well as following up on auditor and CFS recommendations and action

plans. This year’s scores on the audit indicator have been assigned by the CFS Finance Officer in

agreement with the CPM finalization of the PSR.

The use of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) or International Standards of Supreme 131.

Audit Institutions (ISSAI) has continued to grow during this period, reaching 86% of the projects for

which the audit report has been received compared with 75% and 72% in 2011 and 2010,

respectively. National standards were used in the other cases. The Division will continue to pursue

efforts, in collaboration with CFS, towards ensuring that the TOR for the selection of private audit firms

include the use of international standards as a requirement.

The proportion of unqualified audit reports remained unchanged from the two previous review 132.

periods at 80%. As in previous years, there was no adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion.

CFS found that the majority of projects in the LAC region prepare financial statements on the 133.

basis of national standards, modified versions of national or international standards, or on a cash

basis. CFS intends to promote the use of best practice in financial reporting by proposing to projects

that they start using templates designed in IFAD that are compliant with International Public Sector

Accounting Standards and International Financing Reporting Standards.

29

Projects ES 1568, GT 1274, GT 1317, HT 1532, PA 1389 and VE 1404



32

During the forthcoming period, the Division should continue to collaborate with CFS throughout 134.

the audit process to improve the effectiveness of financial management and reporting systems at

project level as well as the timeliness and the quality of audit reports.

Monitoring and evaluation I.

The regional average score for monitoring and evaluation dropped further to 3.7 from 3.9 last 135.

year. Although the number of projects rated 4 or more rose from 25 to 27, the increased number of on-

going projects results in a reduction of the proportion of projects rated moderately satisfactory or

better from 71% last year to 66% in June 2013 when 14 projects showed M&E scores of 3 or less.

These 14 projects are spread through all classes of age: four projects in each of the age groups30

until

five years, two in the 5-7 year group and none of the projects than have been effective for seven

years or more. This means that in almost half of the projects that have been effective for three years

or less, the M&E system reports on progress only at the level of physical targets and managers make

little use of M&E information for planning and / or decision-making; and that, even though the problem

seems less serious after PY 3, in June this year 33% and 25% respectively of projects aged 3-5 years

and projects aged 5-7 years have no satisfactory M&E system. Actually, ten31

projects show lower

ratings in June 2013 compared with last year, while only three32

increased their performance on this

score during the period under review.

Problems with M&E at project level are partly linked to underperformance of project 136.

management units, as illustrated by the relatively high proportion of projects (27%) that scored

moderately unsatisfactory or less on both indicators, but result also from a dearth of qualified M&E

officers partly due to the lack of a results-based culture in the region. Another factor of low M&E rating

may be the increasing demands of CPM for projects M&E systems to generate higher quality data for

results and impact assessment and for knowledge management purposes. Nevertheless, given the

fast growth of the divisional investment portfolio and the entry of a relatively large number of newly

effective projects during the last two years, the Division should increase its attention to the M&E area.

As noted in last year’s report, this should focus on early support to recently effective projects to set up

their management information and M&E systems, engaging project units in defining the methods and

the distribution of tasks for 2nd level reporting well before the project reaches its MTR stage, providing

implementation support for projects to improve activity-output-outcome reporting in periodical

implementation progress reports and for supervision and completion reporting purposes; it should also

include specific attention to timely conduction and quality of baseline surveys as well as of studies and

surveys at mid-term and on completion.

Notwithstanding the above, the Division received acceptable 1st level RIMS reports for 26 of 137.

the 30 projects that were required to submit 1st level reporting, and 19 reports for 2nd level out of 20

required (see Table 33 in the appendix). Project compliance with RIMS reporting at results level has

been improving markedly since 2010 when only 13 projects, out of 20 required, reported at 2nd level.

This is due to the persistent efforts of divisional country teams, especially CPM and M&E consultants

that assist with project supervision and implementation support.

As noted also in last year’s report, the Division continued to develop its capacity to document 138.

and report on the impact of IFAD financed operations in the region. Some of these initiatives

undertaken were in response to corporate priorities stemming from IFAD´s last replenishment (IFAD-

9), that include a commitment on the number of people reached by IFAD projects and the number of

people out of poverty, 90 and 80 million respectively.

To contribute to this discussion, the Division has carried out a series of activities that included a 139.

diagnostic of the state - quantity and quality - of the information collected under the RIMS system.

Table 34 in the appendix presents the extent of availability of RIMS survey information on a project-

30

For the purpose of analysing project maturity, the Division groups on-going projects under five classes of age according the length of time the

project has been effective: less than 18 months; 18 months to less than three years; three to less than five years; five to less than five years; and

seven years or more 31 Projects DO 1479, ES 1416, GT 1274, HN 1407, HN 1535, MX 1349 and ME 1412 scored 4 in June 2012 and 3 this year; the score of project

VE decreased further from 3 to 2; and the score of projects ES 1321 and NI 1380 decreased from satisfactory (5) to moderately satisfactory (4). 32

Project GT 1317 from 3 to 4 and projects HT 1171 and NI 1120 from 4 to 5



33

by-project basis, as well as the availability in each country of some other secondary source of

information (e.g. LSMS, census, etc.), and of some variable of welfare that could be used to make

some estimate of poverty by the poverty line method. The system in place to collect RIMS data does

not guarantee a regular flow of information. In other words, there is a need to revise incentive

mechanisms to collect and report systematic and quality data.

The Division has also been participating actively in an inter-divisional group for discussion of 140.

methods and concepts on poverty and inequality which will provide input to build a methodology of

calculation to meet both corporate indicators referred to above (outreach and poverty reduction).

These activities have been undertaken under the coordination of the SSD team in SKM.

In parallel to the corporate agenda, the Division has undertaken an internal process of reflection 141.

on the quality, relevance and use of the information generated by project monitoring and evaluation

systems; on cost-effective ways to conduct impact evaluations of IFAD-financed projects; on methods

to measure impacts of other types of interventions different from regular investment projects, such as

policy dialogue and/or evaluation of programmes and policies where IFAD-financed projects are

inserted; and, finally, a reflection on how to analyse and absorb the lessons that emerge from the

information contained in the monitoring and evaluation systems into operations both current and

future.

The Division is currently working on developing a method of evaluation for processes, 142.

outcomes, outputs and impact of development projects targeting vulnerable groups with the

characteristics of those of IFAD, making use of the information collected by the projects, but also

allowing in as much as possible the use of secondary sources, and exploring the use of national

systems. In this regard, the Division organized a two-day workshop in Lima (Peru), in May 2013. The

workshop was attended by CPMs and other staff from the Division concerned with the M&E and

results and impact areas, representatives of government evaluation offices of Mexico, Colombia, Peru

and Brazil, a representative of ECLAC, representatives of SSD / SKM and the team of specialists

hired to develop the evaluation method noted above.

A noteworthy conclusion of the workshop was the confirmation of the possibility of IFAD working 143.

in coordination with different government evaluation and census offices that already exist in the

countries of the region and build alliances depending on the particular characteristics of each of these

offices. For example, in the case of Colombia the evaluation office can carry out impact assessments

at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture. In Mexico, CONEVAL (National Evaluation Committee) is

available to provide technical advice for the design and for the selection of service providers to

implement such assessments in the field.

With the inputs from the Lima workshop and the methodological proposal under preparation, 144.

the Division intends to work in collaboration with SKM and within PMD on a proposal for a

customization of RIMS, basically to enrich the system with additional information modules that allow to

capture variables of particular relevance to the Latin American context



34

VI. Results of the on-going portfolio

Overall implementation progress A.

As shown in Table 35 in the appendix, the regional average score for overall implementation 145.

progress this year is 3.83, two decimal points below last year average of 4.03 and also lower than the

3.97 in June 2011. This year’s moderately unsatisfactory average originates primarily in the increased

number of projects rated 3 or less, which rose to nine from seven last year despite the retirement of

project PA 1199 and the upgrade of three of the projects rated 3 in 2012. Other contributing factors

were the assignment of scores of 2 to three of the nine projects scoring 3 or less and the reduction

from eight to five of projects scoring 5 or better.

Projects GT 1274, GT 1317 and VE 1404 confronted the harshest problems, already described 146.

above, which actually worsened from last year when they scored 3 on overall implementation

progresses; this year the projects in Guatemala scored 2 and project VE 1404 scored 1. The two

Dominican Republic projects (DO 1479 and DO 1553), the single projects in Grenada and Panama

(GD 1569 and PA 1389) and one project each in Ecuador (EC 1588) and El Salvador (ES 1568), all

rated 3, complete the list of projects with unsatisfactory project implementation progress in June 2013.

The above reflects the critical situation in Guatemala and in the Dominican Republic described above

and confirms the difficulties of sustaining satisfactory quality of project implementation in Panama.

The Grenada project (GD 1569) received the last supervision mission in July 2013 and 147.

progress in the implementation of important recommendations agreed with government will be closely

monitored by the CPM. The situation will be reassessed in November 2013 during the forthcoming

supervision mission. In the meantime, implementation support should be provided, in coordination

with CDB that co-finances the project, to help concerned country authorities to overcome the

problems experienced by the only IFAD-financed operation in this debt stressed small island state.

As mentioned above, project EC 1588 is managed by the recently established project unit 148.

responsible also for the implementation of project EC 1354. Both projects are part of a larger

programme of national priority and are expected to receive all necessary support from the

government. The last supervision mission took place in May 2013 and confirmed an effective start-up

of project activities.

Prospects for an effective start-up of Project ES 1568 early in the forthcoming review period are 149.

somewhat less favourable. This project was approved in December 2010, signed in March 2012 and

entered into force in June 2012 with an effectiveness lag of 18 months. In 2012 no fiscal space was

assigned to the project in the government’s budget and the project remained in standstill until the

beginning of 2013. Although at the time the project was yet to receive an initial counterpart funding

contribution, could disburse US$150,000 from the IFAD loan in March 2013 to finance start-up costs.

This facilitated the initiation of the selection process for key project staff, incidentally complicated by

the need to re-advertise three positions, including the project director33

. The most intricate problem

confronted during the first semester of 2013, which regarded the appointment of an external entity

responsible for the administration of the project financial resources, was finally resolved with the

decision to contract UNOPS in July 2013. The contract is expected to be signed in August-September

2013. Therefore, the progress that this project could make before the end of 2013 in the actual

implementation of planned activities is at this point uncertain and should be closely followed up by the

Guatemala-based CPM in charge of El Salvador.

The scores of two projects rated 5 in 2011-2012 were downgraded to 4 this year due to slow-150.

down of the implementation pace. For project NI 1380 this is attributed to hindrance caused by the

process of adjustment to the project institutional framework changes resulting from the extinction of its

former lead agency, the Rural Development Institute, that was replaced with a newly created Ministry.

Project ME 1412 experienced a delay in the advertisement of its annual call for sub-project

application, which was yet to be made at the time of the May 2013 supervision mission, due to the

33

Due to the protracted length of the selection process some applicants had found other jobs when they received notification of their selection for

the position in the IFAD-financed project.



35

process of restructuring its lead agency initiated after the installation of a new Federal government in

December 2012.

The best performing projects in the portfolio include, besides projects BR 1335, CO 1294 and 151.

PY 1333 that have consistently shown above average performance, project ES 1321, which is

exceeding most of its targets, and project NI 1120, that has made a significant contribution to raise the

food security and the income of its over 8,000 beneficiaries, the large majority of whom (82%) are

women. A sixth project, PE 1240, also made good implementation progress during the review period

but its pace has slowed down due to uncertainty regarding its expenditure ceiling for 2013. It is

interesting to note that all six best performing projects in the current review period are more than five

years old, with the marginal exception of project ES 1321 (effective for slightly more than 4.5 years).

Likelihood of achieving the development objective

The critical situation in the Dominican Republic and in Guatemala and the operational demise 152.

of project VE 1404, combined with the aggravation of the problems experienced by project GD 1569,

resulted in an increase to five from three of last year of the number of projects assessed as having

slimmer prospects of meeting development objectives by their respective completion dates. The

increase in the number of projects rated 5 from six to eight offset the decline of the average rating

only partially, because, unlike last year when the lowest score assigned was 3, one project (VE 1404)

scored 1 and another (project GT 1274) scored 2 on this indicator. It is consoling to notice that project

GT 1274 left the portfolio last December and project VE 1404 is due for cancellation this year.

All seven projects that scored 5 or more last year and were on-going in the whole or part of the 153.

current period maintained their consistent high likelihood of achievement of development objectives.

These are projects BR 1335, CO 1294, NI 1380, PE 1240 and PY 1333. The two other projects (ES

1215 and GT 1085) left the portfolio in December and September 2011 respectively. Four new

projects (AR 1279, ES 1321, HT 1171 and NI 1120) joined the higher grade group. All this projects

except ES 1321 have been effective for more than five years and, in the case of the projects in Haiti

and Nicaragua, over ten years, evidencing the long time required for LAC projects to realise outcomes

commensurate to design targets.

Outputs and outcomes B.

Contribution to IFAD’s Results Management Framework

The average regional score on country programme performance against the RMF increased 154.

incomes indicator remained unchanged from last year at 4.05 (see Table 36 in the Appendix). There

were however a few changes in individual country ratings. The very low rating of 1 assigned to

Grenada has been adjusted upwards to a still unsatisfactory score of 2. In Brazil, completion of project

BR 1335 in December coincided with the start-up of project BR 1487. The lower country score of 4

assigned this year reflects the lower level of investment activities during the year ending in June 2013.

The score of the contribution to increased incomes in Guatemala dropped to 3 in recognition of the

implications of the problems afflicting the investment portfolio in this country.

The programme in Mexico performed well during the year with an increasing orientation 155.

towards economic empowerment and income generation and is now rated 5. The scores for other

countries remained unchanged. While they continue to be unsatisfactory and moderately

unsatisfactory in the Dominican Republic and in Guyana respectively, they are 4 or more in all the

other countries, with Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru at par with

Mexico with a score of 5. Movement of ratings for improved food security and for empowerment of the

rural poor follow the same pattern. The regional average for increased incomes declined slightly due

to an adjustment made to the score in Argentina. The marginally lower average score for

empowerment is due to a decrease in scores in four countries, namely Haiti (from 6 to 5), Brazil and

Panama (both from 5 to 4) and Guatemala (to 3); not offset by one point increase in Bolivia and

Honduras. Overall, the programmes in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Paraguay ranked highest in the

impact quadrant with scores of 5 or more in all single indicators. The programmes in the Dominican

Republic, Grenada, Guatemala and Guyana continued to show unsatisfactory performance.



36

The assessment of the extent to which the country programme adheres to the aid effectiveness 156.

agenda continued to be favourable overall, with a regional average score of 4.42 unchanged from last

year, and modified ratings in only four countries. The scores of Guatemala and Guyana were

upgraded as a reflection of the improved coordination with governments and co-financiers. The less

favourable aid effectiveness assessment in the Dominican Republic stems from the low level of

commitment evidenced by the unavailability of fiscal space. The score on aide effectiveness in

Nicaragua also decreased, from 5 to 4, and in this regard it is interesting to note the significantly

higher opinion expressed by respondents to this year’s client survey.

This year, the results of the annual client feedback survey became available earlier than in 157.

2012 and on time for including an analysis in this report. This is a global survey conducted in each

IFAD member country with an active programme in alternate years. The respondents to this survey

are partners belonging to one of the following categories: (i) public sector institutions; (ii) development

organisations; (iii) and private sector and civil society organisations. Thirty different people on average

are selected and invited by the CPM to respond to the survey. For the survey to be valid the response

rate should be 40% or more.

It is important to note that the results of the survey are not to be interpreted as a judgement of 158.

good or bad. They are rather an instrument to gauge the perceptions of people with whom we work

and are important actors in the rural poverty reduction and social and economic development arena.

The client survey is also one of the reporting tools for the IX Replenishment Corporate Results

Management Framework in respect of country programme and project management indicators. The

survey is therefore relevant for portfolio performance assessment purposes.

This year the survey has been conducted in seven countries from the region with valid results in 159.

six of them, namely Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The results from this year’s survey for the six countries concerned show relatively high overall

average ratings for the categories of aid effectiveness (although harmonisation was considered an

area for improvement in the Dominican Republic and in Ecuador, and marginally satisfactory in

Colombia) and of impact on poverty.

It is interesting to note that, in all countries except Ecuador, survey respondent rates on income 160.

and food security are higher than CPM scores. This may be a reflection of high recognition of IFAD’s

single role and comparative advantage over other development partners in the economic

empowerment of poor people in rural areas. The relatively low Ecuador respondent scores are

probably related to the issues that have limited the effectiveness of the investment projects in the

country for the reasons explained elsewhere in this report. In the case of the Dominican Republic, the

relatively high respondent scores on the impact category contrast with the low ratings assigned in the

CPIS for this country. This is possibly explained by the high level of appreciation for the alignment of

the IFAD programme with national policies and procedures of survey respondents (average of 5.06)

and of expectations regarding the potential impact of the investment programmes in the country

notwithstanding the problems that they have been confronting.

Results from the responses received indicate the need for the Division to make additional 161.

efforts in the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Venezuela, with regard to the level of IFAD

engagement in national policy dialogue and to how it plays a facilitating role for meaningful

participation and contribution to policy discussion of local stakeholder in these three countries. This

should be made easier by the rotation of CPM for these countries that took place early this year and,

in the case of the Andean sub-region the closer proximity of the CPM who was out posted to the Lima

country office.

Responses to the question introduced this year assesses to what extent IFAD is considered as 162.

an effective partner. There is high regard for IFAD on this score especially in Colombia and

Nicaragua. Opinions expressed have been quite favourable overall, except in Ecuador that averaged

3.07, and to a lesser extent but still moderately satisfactory in the Dominican Republic.

On this year’s survey results it is worth to noting the highly satisfactory views expressed by 163.

respondents from Nicaragua, where the overall average score for all indicators combined reached



37

5.65, ranking very high among the 32 countries where the survey was conducted in 2013. The

average was equally above five for each of the four categories that comprise the questionnaire. The

extent to which the IFAD country programme adheres to the aid development agenda as defined in

the Paris Declaration on the three areas of fostering country ownership, aligning the country

programme with national policies and procedures, and coordination and harmonisation with other

development partners was especially appreciated. Contribution to policy dialogue was also highly

rated, as was the effectiveness of IFAD as a development partner. This can be attributed principally to

the IFAD country team that has operated in close communication with government and other partners

over the last few years, including periodic joint project supervision and the provision of implementation

support as and when required. The approach and the methods applied in Nicaragua could certainly be

replicated in other countries in the region, including those under a Rome-based CPM as is the case of

Nicaragua.

Overall, if this year’s results can be taken as an indication of relative strengths and weaknesses 164.

of the Division in the areas covered by the survey, the conclusion is that it should intensify its efforts

towards better coordinating and harmonising its strategies and procedures with in-country

development partners, both bilateral and multilateral; and boosting its involvement and contribution to

national agriculture and rural development policy dialogue processes, including the facilitation of local

stakeholders participation, especially of farmer organisations, and contribution to policy discussions.

As to the policy agenda, the Division has an outstanding record of achievements in this area, 165.

especially in the Southern Cone sub-region, and has been implementing several initiatives aimed at

promoting the development of increasingly pro-poor public policies. These have been taking place

primarily under the regional grant programme, as noted above under the section on the divisional

grant portfolio and operations, but application of results and lessons learnt has been slow. The issue

to be resolved might be connected to an as yet insufficient degree of dissemination of information and

coordination with the CPM group. Only the CPM is in a position to plan, organise and lead the policy

dialogue processes that warrant to be nurtured at the country level and which should be integrated

with the policy objectives embedded in the COSOP.

Project outputs and outcomes

As regards individual project component performance analysis, the cohort of projects is made 166.

of all projects that include component ratings in the PSR, 33 in both 2012 and 2013. Two projects in

2012 and eight projects in 2013, all effective for less than three years, did not include ratings for

component performance, the difference being explained by the higher number this year of young

projects effective for more than six months at the end of the review period. Coincidently, the cohorts

for both periods include the same total number of components.

The number of projects with average component scores of 4 or more has decreased slightly to 167.

20 from 22 last year. While last year six of the 22 projects had been effective for less than years, only

three of the twenty projects with average component scores of 4 or more belong to the same age

group. This is an indication of the lesser readiness for implementation of new projects entering the on-

going portfolio. While four projects experienced a noteworthy decline in component scores (BE 1456,

GD 1569, DO 1479 and VE 1404), six other projects improved their performance significantly (projects

EC 1297, PA 1389, ES 1321, HN 1407, HN 1535 and ES 1416). Among the projects above that

showed declining performance, only BE 1456 is not-at-risk this year. Project ES 1416 is one of the

three last year actual-problem-projects that were upgraded to not-at-risk during the current period.



38

Table XX - Ratings of outputs and outcomes 2012-2013

The on-going portfolio includes 12 projects34

that have been performing particularly well in 168.

terms of outputs achieved, showing average component scores of 4.5 or more. Seven of these stand

out by showing average component ratings of 5 or more and moderately satisfactory or better

performance in all their components. All 12 projects were more than four years old in June 2013, with

the exception of projects HN 1535 (2.4 years) and PE 1352 (3.8 years). This confirms that projects in

the region take a long time before starting to produce results and more effort needs to be made for

earlier, i.e. from project approval rather than from effectiveness, and more effective preparation for

start-up and during the early implementation period through implementation support.

In accordance with PSR component scores, projects have been performing well in the Markets 169.

impact domain in Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras and Peru, more markedly in Honduras and

in Peru. This is a domain where interventions in the region have been generally successful, with the

exception of countries with systemic problems viz. the Dominican Republic, Grenada and Guatemala.

Performance is also strong in the Natural Resources and the Environment domain, where all 170.

seven projects effective for more than one year performed more than satisfactorily or better with

particularly good results in El Salvador and in Peru. This augurs well for the increasing number of

environment and climate change related interventions arising from the expansion of the GEF portfolio

in the region.

Targeting, poverty and gender C.

The regional portfolio continued to perform well on targeting, focus on poverty and gender. The 171.

problems experienced on gender focus by the projects in Bolivia and El Salvador have been resolved.

The new projects that joined the on-going portfolio generally have developed or are finalising their

gender strategies. The proportion of projects rated moderately satisfactory or better increased to 83%

from 77% last year. New projects generally also started well in terms of poverty focus and the number

of projects rated 5 or 6 remained at 23 despite the departure of highly ranked projects on this

indicator. The proportion of projects moderately satisfactory or better regarding the effectiveness of

targeting approaches remained unchanged at a considerable 91% of the portfolio.

The most successful country programmes in these remain Brazil, Nicaragua and Paraguay. The 172.

group of highly ranked projects was joined this year by projects in El Salvador (ES 1321), Haiti (HT

1171) and Honduras (HN 1407 and HN 1535).

34

Projects CO 1294, PE 1240, BR 1335, NI 1120, ES 1321, HN 1407, HN 1535, NI 1380, PY 1333, HT 1171, PE 1352 and EC 1297

No. % No. %

average rating

rating 1 2 2%

rating 2 7 7% 3 3%

rating 3 19 19% 21 21%

rating 4 41 42% 47 48%

rating 5 27 28% 23 23%

rating 6 2 2% 4 4%

No. of components rated 98 100% 98 100%

rating 3 or less 28 29% 24 24%

rating 4 or more 70 71% 74 76%

No. of projects reviewed 33 33

2013 2012

3.9 4.0



39

Innovation, learning, knowledge management, replication and scaling-up D.

Overall, projects in the region continued to perform well in the areas of innovation and learning 173.

and of replication and scaling-up, notwithstanding a decrease of the regional average score caused

by low ratings of some projects, in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Venezuela in particular.

IFAD’s programme in Peru has been epitomised as rich of innovation and as a fertile ground for 174.

developing, learning from and scaling-up successful rural development methodologies. Two good

examples are the concurso (contest) methodology for competitive allocation of public funding and the

development of rural local markets for technical assistance through peer-to-peer paid provision of

technical services by talentos locales to other campesino smallholder farmers and micro-

entrepreneurs. These methodologies have now spread not only across Peru but also to other

countries and continents.

A representative example of the up-scaling of both methodologies is Colombia where today 175.

more than 50% of the national budget for agriculture is allocated through a competitive procedure;

and where project CO 1491 has, as one of its main objectives, the promotion of learning processes

based on local best practices using emerging local talents to disseminate technical expertise. Another

example of scaling up of methodologies originally developed in Peru is Bolivia, where project BO 1598

will promote demand-driven peer-to-peer technical assistance to support rural business development

and natural resources management; and will use the contest methodology for the allocation of seed

capital for promoting the improvement of natural resource management practices, especially in soil

restoration and water management. Projects EC 1297 and EC 1354 in Ecuador have also adopted

competitive based fund transfers to finance beneficiary investment sub-projects.

In some countries where institutional and cultural environment are not conducive to critical 176.

analysis and learning, a regional or sub-regional approach to learning and knowledge management

can help to make the difference. In the Southern Cone, the REAF MERCOSUR bi-annual meetings

have continued to offer an excellent opportunity for project staff and other government and farmer

representative stakeholders of IFAD country programmes in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay,

to exchange innovations and knowledge. To further enhance knowledge exchanges, the new

MERCOSUR sub-regional grant programme (TAG-1326) includes a specific component on knowledge

management directed at facilitating the capture and the dissemination of successful experiences

within the Southern Cone and to other regions in and beyond Latina America. The new supervision

modality adopted in Argentina has also proved to be a strong medium for knowledge sharing among

staff of provincial management units that implement their parts of the IFAD supported country

programme in relative isolation and now meet regularly at the time of each bi-annual country

programme joint supervision mission.

In working with the most marginalised population groups in Latin America and the Caribbean, 177.

the Division has been placing strong emphasis on the capture, systematisation, documentation and

dissemination of knowledge owned by Indigenous and Afro-descendant populations. For example, in

Bolivia systematisation of traditional Indigenous knowledge is a basis for efforts to foster adoption and

adaptation of modern technologies in the agricultural, environment and financial services sectors. In

Ecuador, IFAD-financed projects have, for several years now, been focusing on Indigenous

knowledge in crafts and visual art, oral history and “literature”, music, drama, dance, traditional

celebrations, etc.. This has enabled to include in the country programme an innovation that consists of

testing the incorporation of these subjects in the educational system in particular locations with a

predominance of Afro-descendant or Indigenous populations.

In Brazil, the GEF-financed Sertao programme (grant GEF-FSP-2), coinciding with the design 178.

of the second phase of Dom Helder Camara project (project BR 1620 planned for submission to the

EB in December 2013), the Agricultural Innovation Marketplace (grant TAG-1334) and the North-East

semi-arid region knowledge management programme (grant COFIN-SP-16), together provide a solid

platform for innovation, knowledge management and scaling-up, especially regarding productive

development and natural resources management. The Sertao project, which has a special focus on

intertwining sustainable natural resources management with productive development and improved



40

market access, provides important lessons that were taken into consideration in the design of the new

IFAD-financed state level investment projects and could also be applied in the implementation of the

newer generation of GEF-financed projects. In Ecuador, underlying risks related to climate change are

being addressed by adopting in the country programme as a whole an approach for the transition to

sustainable agriculture that aims to mitigate negative environmental impacts and foster greater

resilience of agricultural production to climate change by combining support for the intensification of

productive agro ecological systems with the strengthening of ecosystem protection services. Project

EC 1354, under its GEF-financed component, will also introduce a further innovation through the

testing of implementation of payment for environmental services.

Also with regard to the use of knowledge gained for policy development and for scaling-up, in 179.

Nicaragua government recognised that the results and the knowledge gained from the IFAD-financed

portfolio had generated worthwhile inputs for the development of new sectorial policy instruments,

especially with regard to agro-industrialisation and to market access by smallholders and by

Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities. In 2012, government asked for IFAD support to

strengthen the coffee and cocoa sectors in particular. Joint work since mid-last year during the

identification and design of a new project that is planned for the submission at the December 2013 EB

sessions (project NI 1683) has started to facilitate the development of a national vision and strategy

for enhancing coffee and cocoa production across the country.

A handicap that makes knowledge management tasks harder is the weakness of M&E systems 180.

at project level and the absence of a learning culture within institutional frameworks where IFAD

country programmes operate. Greater emphasis on M&E and the increasing country presence in the

region should help to improve the quality of M&E and impact monitoring systems at project level

which, in turn, are expected to strengthen learning and knowledge management processes.

Sustainability E.

Sustainability prospects of the on-going regional portfolio overall show a minor reduction 181.

compared with last year when regional average ratings in the PSR sustainability quadrant as a whole

were moderately satisfactory or better for two thirds of the portfolio. This year, despite an increase in

absolute terms to 25 projects averaging 4 or more (from 23 in 2012), the proportion of projects with

acceptable sustainability prospects fell slightly to 61%. This was caused by low scores of projects

especially in the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Venezuela.

Four projects aged three years or more would warrant special attention: projects HT 1275, GT 182.

1317, DO 1479 and PA 1389. All these projects operate under difficult institutional and policy

environments and, with the possible exception of Guatemala, also a dearth of qualified service

providers in the rural sector. As noted above, the Division is pursuing a very active engagement with

the government in Guatemala, the CPM for Haiti is based in the country, and the MTR mission for the

project in the Dominican Republic is expected to make a fuller assessment of the problems confronted

by the country programme that will inform on decisions to be taken before the end of 2013.

However, project sustainability is hard to build under any circumstances since development 183.

processes at rural community level take time to mature and projects have a short duration of five to

six years. It is particularly challenging for the most marginalised and vulnerable population groups:

Afro-descendants, Indigenous people, women-headed households, youth and internally displaced

people. They are a significant proportion of the IFAD target group in the region, and require additional,

broader and longer technical and capacity building support.

The Division has continued efforts to enhance the sustainability of project interventions as 184.

illustrated by the following examples of concurrent work on two dimensions of in-country ownership:

by government and by beneficiary groups.

Government ownership is essential for IFAD supported interventions to receive political priority 185.

that is critical for sustaining continued public sector support during and after the project

implementation period at both central and local government levels. Project ownership by beneficiaries



41

facilitates empowerment and makes project activities more demand-driven and better tailored to the

specific needs of different groups.

In Haiti, where projects have always had a strong focus on strengthening the capacities of 186.

grass-roots organisations, the recently effective project HT 1532 includes a strategy and resources to

reinforce the capacities of the Ministry of Agriculture at both central and departmental levels. In El

Salvador, projects have started to provide direct support to strengthen territorial planning capabilities

of municipalities and to foster and facilitate public-private alliances at local, municipal and

departmental levels. In Peru, one of the key elements of the most recently approved project (PE 1498)

is the establishment of public-private partnerships promoted by local governments that receive project

support.

Another means to promote sustainability through enhanced government ownership, especially 187.

in countries with more developed institutional frameworks, is to shift away from the traditional model of

stand-alone PMU. Under the new project in Peru, rural municipalities are the main project

implementing agencies and they will, in practice, participate in public concursos for fund allocation

that will include ranking criteria to foster partnerships with the private sector.

At the beneficiary level, the Division recognises also the importance of measures to empower 188.

women for project sustainability. A new grant programme (TAG-1385-UNWOMEN) will develop and

disseminate innovative strategies for enhancing women’s voice and power to influence local

development priorities, operations and processes and for informing policy-making. In Haiti, the country

team has started to promote the inclusion of gender indicators in the management bodies of

community organisations in order to facilitate a deeper analysis and understanding, also by

communities themselves, of gender differentiated access to project services and project benefits.

Private sector is also relevant for project sustainability, especially in value chain development 189.

and market access improvement projects. On this front, the Division has been promoting the

development of strategic alliances between small holder organisations and larger private sector

players. In El Salvador this has helped to open new, or facilitate the expansion of existing, commercial

opportunities for small rural entrepreneurs, leading to increasingly profitable linkages with markets.

A weakness on the sustainability front that the Division should address more forcefully relates 190.

to individual project exit strategies as regards the timeliness of their preparation, their quality and the

degree of stakeholder buy-in during implementation. In effect, there has been a reduction in the

proportion of projects rated 4 or more in this indicator 79% last year to 68% in June 2013. In

accordance with the PSR, only two of the 17 pre-MTR projects that had been effective for more than

six months and less than three years, or 41% of all 41 projects that are effective for more than six

months, were yet to start developing its exit strategy. Early preparation and agreement of exit

strategies before projects reach the point of mid-term review should be made a priority for the regional

investment portfolio in general. Priority should be given in particular to projects that operate under

weak policy and institutional contexts that are less favourable to building sustainability during

implementation, or where there is greater scarcity of service providers



42

VII. Evaluation and self-assessment

During the period under review, the Division has conducted MTR for four projects, two each in 191.

the MCAC and Andean sub-regions.

The MTR for project BO 1298 was carried out in October-November 2012. After three years of 192.

implementation, this project still showed incipient effects, especially due to the lack of a coherent

implementation strategy articulating how to integrate the various levels of intervention along the

camelid value chain. While the project has made good progress in the physical and financial

implementation, this has taken place though in fragmented local initiatives with no complementarities

or synergies between them. As the MTR noted that implementation would be completed in 2014

ahead of the original schedule, it is of particular importance to ensure follow up and implementation

support at a technical level and to an extent that facilitates correction of the deficiencies and an

adequate exit strategy during the next 18 months.

The MTR for project BZ 1456, undertaken in September-October 2012, confirmed that project 193.

remains highly relevant to Belize’s rural financial sector and the needs of poor and vulnerable

households in the rural area, as well as efficiency in terms of cost / timing and quality of delivery and

favourable sustainability prospects. While significant impacts could be observed in terms of enhanced

capacity of some of the participating credit unions and of increased membership, the mission also

pointed out significant delays in the realisation of outputs, particularly for the rural Credit Fund

component that was yet to be operational.

In the case of project HN 1407, the MTR evidenced the slow implementation progress since 194.

November 2008, namely in relation to outreach targets, which had been met for the Tolupan

Indigenous group but overall was at a low 36% of the 4,177 households project target. After four years

of implementation, notwithstanding a significant improvement since 2011, the project had utilised only

25% of financing available, showing a particularly low level in the use of BCIE co-financing (5%). The

mission highlighted the low complementarity and quality of the processes for capacity strengthening of

beneficiary organisations. This was partly due to low intensity of technical assistance and training that

project management attributed to budgetary limitations. While successful in the incorporation of

women and Indigenous population, the lack of a specific strategy was hindering the participation of

youth in project activities. A major problem yet unresolved was the absence of an M&E system, partly

because of high rotation of PMU staff, five different M&E officers since 2009. Overall, sustainability

prospects remained low and work on the definition and implementation of a strategy for the

consolidation of investment sub-projects and the strengthening of organisational and managerial

capacities of beneficiary organisations would be the main challenge for the last two years of project

implementation.

The October-November 2012 MTR for project PE 1352 assessed project implementation 195.

overall has successful. Two years before completion date, the project was reaching 90% of its

outreach target of 20,000 households, and was 13% above target on the area under improved natural

resource management practices that had reached 7,742 ha, one the main project objectives. The

single most important issue highlighted by the MTR was the uncertainty of available budgetary

resources in the past two years that was putting at risk the sustainability of the project by restricting

the extent of the activities directed at fostering inclusion and participation in project activities of the

poorer segments of the beneficiary population. The need for enough resources is particularly

important for this project, which operates in 115 municipalities dispersed over a large remote area of

the country that has historically been devoid of public support and where municipalities have very

limited financial and human capacities.

During this period, IOE carried out a country evaluation in Ecuador that culminated with a round 196.

table in the country in June 2013. However, by the time of writing this report, the evaluation report was

not yet finalised. The Division will include key lessons from this evaluation exercise in the 2014

portfolio performance report. In the meantime, they will be taken into account in the preparation of the

RB-COSOP for this country.



43

As regards completion report validation, IOE prepared four new PCRV during the review period. 197.

Overall, there was a high level of consistency between PSR scores and both PMD and IOE ratings for

all PCR reviewed. An exception were the Gender Quality and Women’s empowerment ratings that in

the case of projects ES 1215 and GT 1085 were lowered by IOE from 6 in the last published PSR to 4

and 5, respectively. For project ES 1215, this seems to have been due to PCR quality deficiencies

rather than actual project achievements in the gender and women’s empowerment area. In the case

of project GT 1085 there is no explanation for the deviation in the PCRV. Perhaps PMD and IOE

scoring criteria, or how it is applied, do not fully match



44

VIII. Portfolio management

Supervision and implementation support A.

Table 38 in the appendix shows the supervision and implementation support missions carried 198.

out during the review period as recorded in PPMS. Divisional PPMS figures should be interpreted with

a degree of caution in assessing the intensity of implementation support for individual projects. This is

mainly because during supervision missions for specific projects, missions may also provide

substantial implementation support to other projects, and, with the expansion of decentralisation, an

increasing proportion of implementation support is carried out without need for travel of country office

staff. It has also been noticed that some degree of late or under-reporting takes place in the Division,

namely when there were delays in forwarding mission documentation to programme assistants.

Notwithstanding the above, the information provided in the table is useful for a broad analysis of the

coverage and focus of supervision and implementation support in the region.

In accordance with the figures recorded in PPMS, a total of 106 implementation support (IS) or 199.

direct supervision (DS) missions covering 42 different investment projects were carried out between

July 2012 and June 2013. In the previous review period, the number of missions totalled 101 for 45

different projects (85 for 36 projects in 2010-2011). The average number of missions (all types

combined) per project shows a slow but continuing increase to 2.5 from 2.4 and 2.2 in the previous

periods.

The number of projects that received three or more missions raised to 18 from 14 last year, 200.

reflecting the increased need for in-loco work to address the problems confronted by the country

programme in the Dominican Republic and by project VE 1404, to prepare and formalise the

documentation for the extension of projects in Ecuador and Venezuela, and, more significantly, to

support the planning and implementation of start-up activities for new projects, namely in Bolivia,

Brazil, Ecuador and Honduras. In effect, the LAC portfolio includes 15 projects recently effective or

that will soon become effective, spread over 12 countries that will require intense support in the start-

up phase. This is even more important since the above projects include the ten projects noted in the

disbursement performance section that are yet to start to disburse and have a combined value

equivalent to almost 30% of the total current portfolio value. While the above will require principally

implementation support, through somewhat light and short missions, the rapid rejuvenation of the

regional portfolio brought about a significant increase of the number of on-going projects that require

normal supervision. This will require careful planning of supervision and implementation support

activities and tuning their intensity to well identified project requirement priorities, while respecting

corporate standards with regard to frequency of supervision.

There is a risk of CPM overload, compounded by the increased number of on-going projects in 201.

their portfolios and their high dispersion across several countries. This risk can be illustrated by the

number of projects that at the end of the review period have been effective for more than six months

and will continue onto the next review period without having received supervision or a MTR mission

during the review period. For the LAC region this number has increased from six in June 2012 to ten

this year. Some projects may be experiencing a slow start-up and do not show sufficient progress to

warrant a heavy supervision mission, but it is good practice to field the first supervision mission and

produce the first full supervision report before the end of project year 1. Adequate start-up of the

numerous new projects, extra implementation support to projects experiencing problems, increasing

attention to project M&E systems and to the factors of sustainability (including early planning and

implementation of exit strategies), and adequate coverage of formal supervision processes will be a

continuing challenge for the Division.

Last year’s report noted the intention of the Division to explore new avenues for reducing unit 202.

supervision costs without compromising the quality and the value of the support provided to project

units. The pilot in Argentina proved to have significant potential for broader dissemination, especially

in countries where there is more than one project under the umbrella of the same lead project agency,

as is the case in several countries in the region. The Argentina model was experimented within a



45

multifaceted context comprised of three projects spanning over all regions of a large country with a

multitude of sub-national entities with a great diversity of political, legal, institutional and skill situations

responsible for implementation in their respective territories. The three projects combined have a

value of almost US$190 million, evenly distributed between IFAD and the borrower. During the review

period they were at different stages of implementation, from start-up (project AR 1610), almost mid-

term (AR 1364) to approaching completion (AR 1279), thus each requiring a specific type of approach

in the supervision process.

The combination of circumstances found in the pilot should make lessons extracted from its 203.

assessment valuable in a wide variety of conditions elsewhere. The IFAD country team carried out

two supervision missions during this reporting, in October 2012 and May 2013. Each mission lasted

for about 12 days and comprised five consultants besides the IFAD CPM. The May supervision report

includes a number of suggestions to continue to improve the methodology. Some of the ingredients

that contributed to the success of this methodology are, from the country’s side, a central unit well

organised, skilfully managed and equipped with qualified and committed personnel, that plays a

coordinating role and pro-actively oversees and provides timely support where and when required to

the sub-national implementing entities.

On the IFAD side, a competent group of professionals with a profound knowledge of the country 204.

and its rural sector, maintained stable over time and that gained the trust and the respect of its

national counterparts. The two sides have jointly arrived at the identification of the need to think out

the box in the search for ways and means to reduce the transaction costs, both financial and time and

opportunity costs, of the supervision process and to make it a joint activity with a potential to generate

processes and products that could benefit all parties concerned, build ownership and develop

methods, tools and skills useful to improve performance during implementation and facilitate

sustainability after the completion of the project. This facilitated the close cooperation and the

continued reflexion and exchange of ideas that expedited the fast perfection of the model. The above

elements may not be found in the same combination throughout the region, but it would be worth to

look for ways to adapt the model to local conditions in other countries.

Another approach has been followed in Nicaragua, where it became customary to undertake 205.

two missions per project each year. In this case, the direction taken was to experiment with alternating

full, comprehensive and in-depth supervision missions and lighter, shorter and with more focus on

addressing known problems and identifying new ones. Each mission would cover and report on the

whole portfolio of in-country projects, also three in Nicaragua albeit of a lower size compared with the

Argentina country programme. This arrangement would be combined with short and focused

implementation support missions to assist with resolving specific issues. One difference between the

IFAD set up in these two countries is the existence in Nicaragua of a liaison officer that facilitates

continuous communication and follow up. This approach is also worth exploring for its potential

In the pursuit of smarter ways of organising supervision and implementation support, it may be 206.

useful to search for new approaches specific for conducting activities from country offices where they

exist. In the context of decentralisation, LAC started two sub-regional offices that serve as base for

more than one CPM. This creates a potential for combining different skill profiles and job grades and

new ways of distributing programme management tasks. In this regard the adoption of the proposal to

base a Finance Officer in the region would add another potentially rewarding element by exploring

synergies between the operational and the fiduciary dimensions of project implementation and

supervision.

Risks B.

The PSR risk section is often a narrative of events or problems that have emerged and are 207.

relevant in terms of impact on project implementation and / or sustainability, followed by statements

on action taken or recommended. It often overlaps with the follow-up action section. The analysis of

information presented in this section points to an insufficient understanding of the concept of risk. This

may due in part to the lack of clear guidance in the Guidance Note for Supervision Aide-memoire. In

addition to more clarity in the concept of risk and how to identify, assess and describe risks, it would



46

be useful to adopt for this section a format similar to the PSR proposed follow-up section to enable

explicit presentation of risks and of specific mitigation measures for each risk. As CFS has developed

and is mainstreaming a financial management risk assessment methodology, it could be useful to

consider the preparation of a simple guidance note on this specific area and include a dedicated row

for FM risk in the PSR risk section.

Table 39 In the appendix shows a listing of the more prevalent risk areas as recorded in end-of-208.

period PSR. The most prevalent risk, reported for 19 projects, or almost of the investment portfolio,

arises from weak planning and / or M&E capabilities at project level. This risk has always featured

high in the ranking of risks impacting project implementation progress and confirms the need for pro-

active measures.

This year, a similar number of PSR make reference to three other risk types with impact on 209.

fiduciary performance or implementation progress: lacking capacity in the PMU and/or the Lead

Project Agency, lacking or weak project implementation and/or exit strategy, and insufficient or

untimely availability of fiscal space. All these, in the same way as for the M&E area, relate to issues

that have emerged as problems that actually constrained project performance during the review

period, rather than to probable negative occurrences caused by certain vulnerabilities and that may be

avoided through pre-emptive (rather than remedial) action.

Portfolio at risk C.

The number of projects rated as actual-problem project (APP) at the end of the review period 210.

increased to nine, from seven last year when the proportion of projects in the on-going portfolio in

actual-problem status (19%) broke the 20% threshold for the first time. The same proportion this year

is 21%, still the second best and at par with the 2009-2010 period. This is the result of the growth of

the on-going portfolio, that counts a record of 42 projects today, compared with only 26 projects in

June 2008.

Projects in Guatemala (GT 1274 and GT 1317) and project VE 1404 were already rated APP 211.

last year. The two projects in Guatemala also rated APP in 2010-2011. The problems confronted by

these projects were noted above in this report. While implementation of project GT 1317 is expected

to resume upon correction of the law approved last year, time and significant efforts will be required

before it will start to pick-up. This is mainly because most of the personnel have left and new selection

processes will have to be engaged, financial records need to be reconciled and updated, outstanding

audit reports submitted, many activities were abruptly interrupted letting down beneficiaries, service

providers and other stakeholders; and the Ministry of Agriculture has capacity shortcomings that have

historically slowed down project implementation pace. Project GT 1274 is no longer on-going as it left

the portfolio last December upon reaching completion date. As noted above, the Division expects to

close project VE 1404 in anticipation due to the impossibility of removing the obstacles that prevented

the start-up of implementation.

Project PA 1389 was rated potential-problem-project (PPP) last year and was downgraded 212.

because of a continuing degradation of the project environment and unresolved project-specific

problems. The Division will be in a better position to assess the prospects for this project upon the

MTR that will be carried out before the end of 2013.

The two projects in the Dominican Republic were also rated as APP, project DO 1479 for the 213.

second time as in 2010-2011 it has been rated as actual-problem due to delays in the fulfilment of

disbursement conditions. Implementation of this project started late and still shows limited results on

the ground, as not much progress was made since the first disbursement was effected in January

2012. Project DO 1533 is effective since September 2012 and pre-implementation activities are yet to

start. The continued unavailability of budgetary resources is the major stumbling block to deliver

results in this country, despite intensive efforts deployed by the Division, including a mission headed

by the Director. The MTR for project DO 1479 that is scheduled for Q III 2013 is expected to provide

additional insights on decisions on how to proceed with investment operations in the Dominican

Republic.



47

The other three projects rated as APP are projects EC 1588, ES 1568 and GD 1569. Project 214.

EC 1588 has been effective since May 2012 and until the end of the year pre-implementation

activities focused on the establishment and formalisation of the Buen Vivir joint management unit,

selection of and induction of key personnel, finalisation of other operational arrangements, and first

disbursement that was effected in December 2012. The APP rating for this project reflects the delayed

start-up of implementation that has effectively started only in the first semester of 2013. As noted

above, the Division is confident of a gradual improvement of the implementation status of his project,

as pre-implementation activities were adequately implemented, the management unit has a sufficient

degree of autonomy and government ownership of the national Buen Vivir programme is very strong.

Project ES 1568 has been effective since June 2012 but no activity could be undertaken in 215.

2012 due to the lack of budgetary allocation. Other pre-implementation requirement that dragged

during 2012 was the appointment of an agent responsible for the procurement and the financial

administration of the project. By the end of the review period both questions had been resolved

(although the administration covenant was not yet finalised) and the first disbursement effected (in

March 2013). Implementation is expected to start during Q III of 2013 but there are risks arising from

2013 being a pre-electoral year. The CPM, based in the Guatemala country office, is closely following

up developments, including by holding meetings twice a month, to accelerate the implementation

start-up process.

Implementation of Grenada project GD 1569 slowed down considerably during the review 216.

period. The last supervision mission in July 2013 left important recommendations whose

implementation, assessed through implementation support missions and agreed with the government,

will be closely monitored by the CPM. The situation will be reassessed during the forthcoming

supervision mission in November 2013.

In addition to the nine APP described above the portfolio includes three other projects-at-risk, 217.

rated as potential-problem-projects (PPP) this year, namely two projects in Haiti (HT 1275 and HT

1532) and one in Honduras (HN 1595). These three projects were assessed as moderately

satisfactory overall but scored 3 or less in a number of critical performance indicators, those that are

also used to calculate country PBAS allocations.

Project HT 1275 had been rated APP in June 2011 due to very slow and problematic 218.

implementation since effectiveness in November 2008. Progress started to accelerate from the

second half of 2011 but not enough for the project to achieve results commensurate to its targets, also

due to a number of problems, some project-specific but others systemic. The persistent under delivery

of counterpart funding and weak financial management and internal controls, poses a risk of

suspension unless the long overdue installation and operationalization of accounting software is

completed soon and audit reports of adequate quality are provided on time. These factors also

lowered the score on compliance with loan covenants. While the project is doing well at targeting

poverty, there is need for improving on gender, particularly with regard to the role of women in

beneficiary organisations. Compliance with procurement requirements has improved but procurement

activities take very long and have delayed progress in tendering for feasibility studies and for civil

works, a major element of project investment given the focus of the project on the rehabilitation and

construction of irrigation schemes. Other areas for improvement include M&E and the selection of

service providers, which are also linked to the shortage of qualified manpower in the country.

However, the project made progress in the implementation of key activities, including a partnership

agreement between the Ministry of Agriculture and IICA, the preparation of a framework for supporting

marketing activities, adopting the PAIP (project HT 1171) approach for boosting microfinance, and a

new agreement with AAA for the development of another watershed area. Nevertheless the project

will continue to carry an important delay and the scares of the lasting problems that affected progress

to date.

The younger project HT 1532 was approved in September last year and signed and declared 219.

effective less than two months later. The design of this project embraces two main lessons learned

over time in Haiti, being the need for strong government sense of ownership, not always easy to

develop in a situation of high external dependence, and the importance of strategic partnerships to



48

compensate for public sector weaknesses. This placed the Irrigation Department in a leading role in

the definition of the strategic direction of project financed investments and in the planning and

oversight of irrigation investments. The negotiation process for this project also concluded by an

agreement to involve IICA as an implementing party directly in charge of the execution of a number of

critical project activities.

Regrettably, although the planning phase has been successfully completed, implementation of 220.

project HT 1532 has not yet started. The single factor now causing delays is the absence of reliable

functional accounting software, the same that would be used by sister-project HT 1275 and

constitutes a general condition for starting to disburse IFAD financing. The Ministry of Agriculture has

demonstrated a strong sense of ownership by devoting tremendous efforts to accelerate the

implementation preparation phase, including by using its own funds to hire consultants to assist with

preparation of project manuals and other activities, and by requesting IFAD to suspend the

disbursement conditions to allow for payments to IICA, which is ready to start the activities under its

responsibility. However, as no IFAD funds could be withdrawn for payments to the Ministry of

Agriculture even if IFAD approves the request from government to disburse to IICA, normality of

implementation remains dependent on the progress that will be made in installing the accounting

software. The Division is confident that the Ministry of Agriculture will do all in its capacity to

accelerate this process. But in any event implementation will be limping until normality of

disbursements is established.

The country programme in Honduras has a record of systemic problems in the implementation 221.

pace and in the mobilisation and disbursement of both external financing and domestic counterpart

funding. Weaknesses in accounting and financial management and in M&E have also been a

consistent obstacle to effective implementation. All projects in Honduras have gone through periods of

hardship that caused their classification as actual-problem-project. The most recently effective project

in Honduras (HN 1595), also rated as PPP this year, became effective in February 2012 after a

relatively short lag from approval of less than five months. However no fiscal space was assigned to

the project throughout the year and the first disbursement could only take place in May 2013. This

project experienced delays also in the approval of co-financing. The project is co-financed by a

relatively small US$3 million GEF grant, the design of which had been completed by June 2012 but

was only approved in May 2013. Approval of this co-financing was a prior requirement for processing

a larger loan (US$8 million) financed by BCIE, which is now expected to be concluded near the end of

2013. Although the current status of this project is not dramatic, it will require close follow up during

the forthcoming period in order to cut to minimum further delays that jeopardise implementation.

The total number of projects at risk at the end of this review period adds up to 12, four more 222.

than last year. They make up a relatively large (29%) proportion of the number of on-going projects at

the end of the period (42) but one (GT 1274, rated APP) left the portfolio last December. Hence, the

region starts the 2013-2014 period with 11 projects-at-risk, of which eight in APP status. Nine of the 11

projects-at-risk are located in the MCAC sub-region, the other two in the Andean sub-region. As the

MCAC sub-region had 22 projects on-going in June 2013, the above means that this sub-region holds

82% of the portfolio-at-risk in LAC (compared with 52% of the regional on-going portfolio) and starts

the forthcoming review period with 41% of its portfolio in at-risk status. Problems are mostly

concentrated in the Dominican Republic and in Haiti, with two projects-at-risk each.

The Division has accorded strong priority to Haiti during the review period. The principal 223.

decision was to out-post the CPM who is now full-time devoted to this country programme and initial

results are already emerging. In the case of the Dominican Republic, as noticed above, a determinant

MTR review of project DO 1479, that will also look into project DO 1533, will take place in September

2013. Prospects in Guatemala are also uncertain but the CPM has been showing high pro-activity in

anticipating events and search for solutions in close collaboration with high-level authorities that are

showing increased commitment and action to resuscitate the IFAD programme in the country.

Government commitment in Grenada was reinforced during the recent supervision mission and 224.

the Division will provide implementation support and follow developments closely for an update of

progress next November. In Honduras, there will also be need for close follow up and adroit action to



49

establish the firm foothold required for project HN 1595 during the electoral period until the installation

of new Government and Congress in January 2014.

Problem Patterns D.

This year, coherence between AWPB & implementation ranks as the lowest performing area of 225.

the portfolio. The regional average rate dropped from 4.1 to 3.7 last year and the proportion of

projects rated moderately satisfactory or better from 79% to only 60%. As all, except one, ten projects

effective for 18 months or less either were not (six project) or scored 4 on this indicator (likely an

indication of satisfactory progress in planning and implementing start-up activities), the problem lies

with the more mature part of the portfolio.

In effect, none of the seven projects in the 1.5 to 3-year age group scored more than 3 in this 226.

indicator. This group includes two projects placed this year in the actual-problem-project category

(GD 1569 and VE 1404) that had very limited or no activity this year. The problems experienced in the

Dominican Republic and in Guatemala, the continued difficulties of project PA 1389, the delay in

making operational the PMU for project BO 1490 and the slow start-up of project AR 1610 provide the

remaining explanation.

As noted above, six younger projects aged one year or less were not rated this year. This is an 227.

indication of absent or rather incipient progress in the implementation start-up of these projects,

explained, with the exception of projects BR 1487 and CO 1491, by the lack of fiscal space allocated

to IFAD-financed projects in government budgets.

The low scores on this indicator therefore implies both institutional or policy issues of the kind 228.

that virtually stopped project implementation in the Dominican Republic and in Guatemala; and

weaknesses in budgetary planning and/or allocation mechanisms that are not activated in the relative

much shorter time between project approval and effectiveness since the entry into force of the new

General Conditions.

Chart VI - Areas of relative low performance (2011-2013)

Monitoring and evaluation remains one of the areas with highest incidence across the portfolio 229.

as it scores moderately unsatisfactory or less in almost one third of the projects. As noted in last

year’s report, weaknesses in M&E systems impact on the ability to adequately plan and monitor

results and impacts, M&E is also a key tool for activity and budgetary planning. Projects without an

appropriate management and information system are less able to make realistic financial and

operational projections, to detect deviations from established time schedules for the execution of

procurement and field activities on time, and, crucial considering the fiscal space problems confronted



50

in the region, to explain to high level civil servants and to politicians why they should receive priority in

budgetary allocation or re-allocation process.

Despite being for some years one area of focus of direct supervision, project performance on 230.

M&E in the region overall shows a continuous albeit slow deterioration. The Division recognises a

relative technical complexity of the tasks involved in project M&E and the challenge of finding and

retaining good M&E officers. However, since 2009-2010, the Division has invested considerably in

implementation support to projects, especially through short-term consultancies during supervision

missions or stand-alone missions. This phase had been preceded by a long period during which

support to projects was provided under the grant programme through organisations perceived as

having a comparative advantage in terms of project M&E skills. Today, with the increased focus on

impact and on the achievement of tangible and documented results, it is about time to start reflecting

on how to best reorganise divisional work on this area. One element of reflection regards the

presence of a perhaps counter-productive outsourcing element in both approaches. The reflection on

the next phase could consider broadening the sense of ownership and of accountability of M&E and

impact management related tasks among staff.

Regional average scores of the Responsiveness of Service Providers indicator have 231.

consistently been below 4 in the past four years since the Division started its direct supervision

programme. The 3.83 average of this period reflects a declining trend, as it compares with 3.94 last

year and 3.97 in 2011. Information from supervision reports and PSR are not vey elucidating of the

causes, or of action taken to address problems deriving from scarcity or quality of service providers.

Nevertheless improvement is required at it affects the pace of delivery and the quality of project

results, while undermining empowerment of the poor rural and the prospects of post-project

sustainability.

Consistently relatively higher scores in this indicator in Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru, 232.

may provide clues to support the search for innovative modalities for the mobilisation, organisation

and management of services required by project beneficiaries. Assignment of higher importance to

procurement activities could also help through better preparation of terms of reference and other

elements of requests for proposals including evaluation criteria. Divisional focus to date on

compliance with IFAD regulations should be balanced with increased emphasis on the technical and

operational quality of procurement processes, including strengthened management and supervision of

contract implementation at project level.

The two other areas of relative low performance this year, namely disbursement and exit 233.

strategies, have been discussed elsewhere in this report.

Proactivity and reduced risk E.

The pro-activity index for the LAC region this year is 57% since four of the seven projects rated 234.

as APP last year have been upgraded or suspended. The performance of projects BO 1490, EC 1354

and ES 1416, has improved overall, as evidenced by higher average PSR scores; especially in the

case of project ES 1416, as expected in last year’s review. Problems experienced by project VE 1404

have been extensively noted above and, the division expects that it will be closed in anticipation

before the end of 2013.35

35

The pro-activity index is the share of projects rated as actual-problem in the previous review period that have been upgraded, restructured,

closed, cancelled or suspended during the current review period.



51

The reduced risk index36

is 33% as only one (project GT 1317) of the three projects that were 235.

classed as actual-problem-projects last year and remained in the actual-problem group (projects GT

1274, GT 1317 and VE 1404) featured improved performance during the 2010-2011 review periods.

Table XXI - Reduced risk index 2012-2013

36

The reduced risk index is the share of projects rated as actual-problem-projects in the previous year that, despite remaining in the actual-

problem group, are featured by an improved performance; this is calculated by comparing the average score on all PSR flags for the previous

year with the average for the current review period

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

2011-

2012

2012-

2013Change

Guatemala 1274 20-Oct-06 31-Dec-12 3 3 3 2 3.21 2.63 ↓

Guatemala 1317 01-Dec-08 31-Dec-14 3 2 3 3 3.26 3.63 ↑

Venezuela 1404 19-Oct-10 31/2/2017 3 2 4 1 3.65 2.37 ↓

Average score – all flags

Country Project IDEffectiven

ess date

Completio

n date

IP DO



52

IX. Conclusions and the way forward

The region as a whole will continue to show moderate rates of economic growth in 2013 and 236.

2014 largely due to a global economic slowdown both in developed and emerging economies.

However, it is expected that overall macroeconomic stability will be preserved and on-going reform

process will continue in order to ensure the sustainability of the social and economic progress so far

achieved. On-going reforms include, among others, fiscal consolidation and counter-cyclical policies.

In the fiscal realm, counter-cyclical policy has played a critical role in mitigating the adverse effects of

the financial crisis. However, today we are being alerted on the possible risks associated with

increasing the region’s structural deficit, as a result of the governments’ inability to dismantle

expenditure frameworks that should contract after the crisis has passed. As noted elsewhere in this

report, IFAD operations have suffered the impact of fiscal restrictions that confined budgetary

allocations to levels insufficient to maintain operational normality in a relatively large number of

projects.

In terms of fight against poverty and reducing inequality, the region has shown a positive trend. 237.

During the past two decades, the poverty headcount ratio decreased from 48.4% in 1990 to 31.4% in

2010 and for extreme poverty from 22.6% to 12.3%. These results are attributed, to a great extent, to

redistribution efforts, among which conditional transfers under social protection programmes have

played a predominant role. However, due to the high levels of inequality that persist in the region,

above averages present a distorted picture of the living conditions in significant territorial spaces and

population groups including, notably, Indigenous groups, those of African descent, and the rural

population in general.

Unequal access to technology has also widened the productivity gap between a dynamic 238.

modern agricultural sector and family farming. Recent studies estimate that only 8% of family farmers

are totally integrated into value chains and that only 25% have good potential for fully participating in

the modern agricultural sector. Challenges remain also with regard to income-generating strategies in

rural areas outside the agricultural sector, which are particularly important for IFAD’s target groups,

mainly youth and women, for whom the promotion of alternative sources of income is critical in order

to ensure the sustainability of the rural environment where they live.

Regional trends represented by regional averages hide significant disparities among LAC 239.

countries, which differ significantly from one another. The type and the extent of support that IFAD can

provide to Latin American and Caribbean countries must be determined by the different performances

of the region’s economies in terms of economic growth, varying levels of poverty and inequality, and

also by their institutional capacity. In this sense, lending instruments is a fundamental tool, but not the

only one. Policy dialogue, regional and national grants, and strategic planning exercises such as the

COSOP must be geared towards increasing levels of economic and social inclusion of the rural

population.

The English Caribbean sub-region continues to pose several challenges for IFAD. The insularity 240.

and the small size of Caribbean countries, their high debt burden, limited human capital and low

absorptive capacities, necessitate that IFAD adopt an innovative approach. While recognising the

pressing need to revitalize the agricultural sector in the Caribbean and to address issues of rural

poverty, youth unemployment and climate change, the current IFAD business model implies high cost

of design, delivery and administration of a plethora of small loans to individual member states. The

Division has started to explore a multi-country programme approach to reduce administrative costs,

build synergies across the countries and bring common solutions to similar problems across small

island states.

With regard to the investment portfolio in particular, the number of on-going projects showed a 241.

dramatic increase to 42 projects from 36 last year, 33 in June 2011 and 26 in June 2008 when the

Division started to organize the uptake of direct supervision. In terms of value, the on-going IFAD

financed portfolio increased by 21% from last year and, more impressively, jumped by 44% since

2006 following a continued upward trend.



53

The significant growth of the on-going portfolio is the fruit of continued efforts to fulfil the lending 242.

programme and to accelerate effectiveness of approved projects. Nine new projects became effective

during the current review period for a combined value of US$185.6 million in IFAD financing, more

than the double of the US$million 85.3 million value of the seven projects that became effective in

2011-2012. Consequently, the end-of-period stock of IFAD financing pending effectiveness has been

halved from US$166.6 million to US$86 million. Another effect was further rejuvenation of the on-

going regional portfolio that now comprises 81% of projects effective for less than five years,

compared with 64% in 2010.

The rapid increase in the number of on-going projects has implications for the divisional 243.

supervision programme. CPM need to attend to additional projects, and this has significant budgetary

implications, especially in terms of additional consultant time and travelling, with a peak in 2014 when

recently effective projects will require above average support as they are in the start-up phase. The

Division has continued its best efforts to contain expenditure on supervision and implementation

support, but its margin to efficiency improve further is limited by the relative small average amount of

IFAD financing per project, which, as noted above in this report, is a consequence of the PBAS

system introduced in 2004.

The PBAS system restrained the overall value of IFAD financing available for poverty reduction 244.

in the regionFrom 2000 to 2012, the region’s share of IFAD financing has been cut from 18% to 12%.

While over the 200-2012 period, the value of IFAD’s overall current portfolio increased by 73%, from

US$3.2 to US$5.5 million, LAC current portfolio increased by only 19%, from US$0.58 million to

US$0.69 million. The PBAS system has caused a structural change in the regional distribution of

investment projects in the region. The MCAC sub-region has been particularly affected, its share of

IFAD financing dropping from 55% in June 2011 to 43% in 2013.

Stability of the amount of resources available to the region to finance IFAD’s unique kind of 245.

poverty reduction interventions is the exclusive result of a remarkable increase in external co-

financing, which has almost doubled since 2011. In others words, in terms of project financing, at the

closing of the 2010-2012 PBAS cycle, the Division has a different business model. This new business

model has implications in the way of approaching and managing the administrative budget of the

Division, as the cost of project design and project supervision is made up of several sources of

funding adding complexity to the traditional way budgets used to be managed.

Efforts, for accelerating effectiveness of approved grants, similar to those made for investment 246.

operations, has placed the Division for the first time in the position of having no approved grants

pending effectiveness at the end of the review period this year. This helped a further increase in the

value of the IFAD financed portion of the grant portfolio that jumped from US$12.3 million in June

2010 to US$21.1 million at the end of this review period. It is however bound to decline in the future

because allocation of IFAD grant resources to the region have been drastically reduced: despite full

use by the Division of the US$7.2 million 2012 grant allocation, the 2013 grant budget approved for

the region amounts to only US$4 million.

As noted in previous reports, the Division had decided to have fewer but larger grants in order 247.

to concentrate the grant portfolio in less but more focused areas and to reduce the management and

administration costs of the grant programme. Further progress has been made on this front, as

illustrated by the US$1 million average grant size reached in June 2013, significantly higher than the

already respectable US$615,000 in June 2010.

Disbursements to the region during the period under review have declined to US$66.4 million 248.

from US$77.8 million, a reduction of US$11.5 million, or 15%. This fall is mostly explained by the high

dependence of overall disbursement flows to the region on a few projects, as evidenced by the weight

in overall disbursements of the five best disbursing projects, which, for the past five review periods

has averaged 38% of total disbursements to the region. This was exacerbated in the review period, as

the two projects that showed the highest disbursements in 2011-2012, of US$12.8 million combined,

only disbursed US$1.1 million in 2012-2013.



54

The response from the Division is to pay increased importance to improve the implementation 249.

performance of slow-disbursing projects and to speed up implementation readiness of projects

entering the on-going portfolio. A significant part of these efforts would need to be devoted to ensuring

sufficient fiscal space for both external financing and government funds, which was a constraint to

implementation progress and to disbursement levels during the period under review. Particular efforts

should be devoted to the MCAC sub-region that counts most of the under-disbursing projects and only

two of the ten not-yet-disbursing projects, and where 12 of the 13 projects that suffered from

insufficient budgetary allocations are located.

Significant progress has been made during the review period also on the financial management 250.

and the loan administration fronts. The continued application of the new risk-based disbursement

framework, supported by an increasing number of project capacity assessments and better interaction

between finance officers on the one side and CPM and LAC implementation support consultants on

the other, enabled a noticeable increase in the number of low financial management risk projects in

the region that raised to 24, or more than half of the portfolio, a 50% increase over last year. It also

helped in further revision of project SOE thresholds. The number of projects that are not required to

submit supporting documentation for expenditures up to US$75,000 has increased from 17 to 27,

including 13 projects, up from eight last year, that are altogether exempted from submitting supporting

documents. The effective work carried out by LAC implementation support consultants, closer

communication across divisions, and the diligence of LAC, CFS and Treasury professional and

support staff, also contributed to further decreasing the average number of days required to process a

WA, from 13 to 10 days.

A key success factor of the above noted improvements is the operating model adopted by the 251.

Division of combining decentralisation and staff out-posting with a network of specialised local

consultants. This comes with a double advantage. First, it allows tapping the in-depth local knowledge

of experts based in the region. Second, the cost-benefit ratio is high, since local consultant fees are

often below international levels and travel costs can be contained as travel is done within the region.

The Division recognises that, given the relatively healthy status of IFAD portfolio in LAC on 252.

fiduciary terms and the progress made since the Division took up the responsibility for direct

supervision in 2009, additional gains could be maximised with greater physical proximity to the

institutions and the people with whom we work in the region. In this sense, the Division has put

forward a proposal to CFS for out posting a Finance Officer to the region. This would reduce IFAD

costs since overseas travelling for CFS staff to visit countries in Latin America could be minimised.

The comparatively more developed institutional frameworks and sounder country systems 253.

found in Latin America could also constitute a learning ground for CFS that could use knowledge and

experience gained from more direct and close interaction with the region for dissemination in, and

easier exchanges with, countries in other parts of the world. The ideal location, but not the only option,

would be Guatemala since it is the location of IFAD’s main sub regional office in LAC where two CPM

are based, including the coordinator for the MCAC sub region. As repeatedly noted in this report, the

large majority of projects experiencing problems, especially in the financial management and audit

areas, are located in the MCAC sub-region.

One area requiring improvement is project M&E. Project scores on M&E have historically been 254.

moderately unsatisfactory and this year M&E ranks lowest amongst all PSR indicators with a regional

average score of 3.7. Given the demand for higher quality data for results and impact assessment and

for knowledge management purposes, it is important to inform about replication and up-scaling

initiatives, and the fast growth of the on-going portfolio that now includes a large number of newly

effective projects, the Division will continue to improve further on its work in the M&E area.

As noted in last year’s report, on the one hand, this should focus on early support to recently 255.

effective projects to set up their management information and M&E systems, engaging project units in

defining the methods and the distribution of tasks for 2nd level reporting well before the project

reaches its MTR stage, providing implementation support for projects to improve activity-output-

outcome reporting in periodical implementation progress reports and for supervision and completion



55

reporting purposes; it should also include specific attention to timely conduction and quality of

baseline surveys as well as of studies and surveys at mid-term and completion.

On the other hand, the Division should continue both to develop its own capacity to document 256.

and report on the impact of IFAD-financed operations in the region. Some new initiatives have been

initiated during the review period, also in response to corporate priorities stemming from IFAD IX

Replenishment. These have included a diagnostic of the information collected through the RIMS

system that pointed to the need for putting in place incentive mechanisms to collect and report

systematic and quality results and impact data. The Division has also been participating actively in an

inter-divisional group for discussion of methods and concepts on poverty and inequality activities

under the coordination of SKM’s SSD team.

Improved emphasis on M&E related issues is also expected to help divisional continuing efforts 257.

to enhance the sustainability of project interventions, a particularly challenging task in the region as a

significant proportion of the IFAD target group is comprised of the most marginalised and vulnerable

population groups: Afro-descendants, Indigenous people, women-headed households, youth and

internally displaced people.

Notwithstanding a significant rotation of staff within the CPM group, the Division implemented 258.

its supervision and implementation support programme successfully. The total number of missions

has increased over last year, as did the average number of missions per project. This is a reflection of

the intensification of efforts to address unexpected problems in certain country programmes, and to

support the planning and implementation of start-up activities for newly effective projects. In the next

few years, fulfilment of supervision responsibilities will require substantial efforts and imagination, both

operationally and financially, as a result of the significant increase in the number of on-going projects,

which in LAC are highly dispersed geographically.

The Division has continued to explore new avenues for reducing unit supervision costs without 259.

compromising the quality and the value of the support provided to project units. The on-going pilot in

Argentina proved to have significant potential for broader dissemination, and the lessons learned are

valuable in a wide variety of conditions elsewhere. Another pilot approach was adopted in Nicaragua,

by experimenting with alternating full, comprehensive and in-depth supervision missions and lighter,

shorter and with more focus on addressing known problems and identifying new ones. Out-posted

CPM are also assessing the cost and the effectiveness benefits from physical proximity. Next year,

the Division will continue to report on further progress made in the pursuit of smarter ways of

organising supervision and implementation support.

The overall average performance of the regional portfolio this year has been affected by 260.

problems experienced in the Dominican Republic and Guatemala country programmes as a whole,

and by project-specific problems experienced by individual projects in the country programmes of

Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada and Panama and, to a smaller extent, in Haiti and Honduras. This is

reflected in the increased number of projects rated as actual-problem project, although, as a

proportion of the on-going portfolio, at 21%, is only one percentage point above the last fiver-year

average. In all cases, the Division has responded by stepping up implementation support and

dialogue with in-country counterparts and will continue to intensify efforts as may be required to

adjust, restructure or cancel non- or under-performing projects.

APPENDICES

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

1

Table 1 : RB-COSOP programme: June 2013

CountryRB-COSOP

approval date

Last review

undertaken

Next review

planned

New RB-COSOP

plannedRemarks

Bolivia Dec 07 Nov 12 2015RB-COSOP has been extended to 2015 to align with

election cycles

Brazil Sep 08 Nov 11 Q IV 2013 2015

Colombia 2015

Dominican Republic Apr 10 Q IV 2013

RB-COSOP Implementation not reviewed to date due to

delays in the start-up and implementation of investment

projects

Ecuador 2014RB-COSOP to be prepared after completion of ongoing

Country Evaluation

El Salvador 2015

Guatemala Dec 08 Dec 10 2013Initial consultations held in Q IV 2012. Presentation to EB of

new RB-COSOP to be defined In Q III 2013

Haiti Apr 09 Nov 11 2013Presentation to EB planned for September 2013

Honduras Dec 12 Q I 2014 Replaced former RB-COSOP approved in April 2007

Mexico Dec 07 Feb 11 2014

Nicaragua Dec 12 Q I 2014

Panama Sep 07 Feb 11 Q IV 2013

Consultations with government on new RB-COSP started

in March 2013

Peru Sep 09 Mar 12 2014



2

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 2: Current investment Portfolio: June 2013

Status CountryProject

ID Project

Approval

dateSigning date

Effectiveness

date

Current

completion

date

Current

closing

date

Ongoing

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA 02 Dec 04 27 Nov 06 10 Sep 07 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14

Argentina 1364 PRODEAR 14 Dec 06 17 Oct 08 16 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16

Argentina 1610 PRODERI 15 Sep 11 25 Nov 11 07 Dec 11 31 Dec 17 30 Jun 18

Belize 1456 RFP 17 Dec 08 19 May 09 01 Sep 09 30 Sep 16 31 Mar 17

Bolivia 1298 VALE 14 Dec 06 22 Nov 07 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16

Bolivia 1490 PLAN VIDA 17 Dec 09 17 Mar 11 10 Aug 11 30 Sep 15 31 Mar 16

Brazil 1486 VIVA O SEMI-ÁRIDO (Piauí) 15 Sep 09 09 Apr 13 09 Apr 13 30 Jun 20 31 Dec 20

Brazil 1487 PROCASE (Paraíba) 17 Dec 09 17 Oct 12 17 Oct 12 31 Dec 18 30 Jun 19

Brazil 1619 PAULO FREIRE (Ceará) 21 Sep 12 27 Jun 13 27 Jun 13 30 Jun 19 31 Dec 19

Colombia 1294 OPORTUNIDADES 14 Sep 06 19 Feb 07 28 Jun 07 31 Dec 13 30 Jun 14

Colombia 1491 TOP 03 Apr 12 27 Sep 12 13 Dec 12 31 Dec 17 30 Jun 18

Dominican Republic 1479 PRORURAL OESTE 30 Apr 09 29 Jun 09 26 May 10 30 Jun 16 31 Dec 16

Dominican Republic 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE 02 Apr 10 25 May 10 04 Sep 12 30 Sep 18 31 Mar 19

Ecuador 1297 CORREDRO CENTRAL 02 Dec 04 16 Mar 07 25 Sep 07 30 Jun 14 31 Dec 14

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO 15 Sep 09 04 Mar 11 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 30 Sep 17

Ecuador 1588 BUEN VIVIR 15 Sep 11 30 May 12 30 May 12 30 Jun 18 31 Dec 18

El Salvador 1321 PRODEMORO 19 Apr 05 22 Jan 07 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 30 Jun 17

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR CENTRAL 12 Sep 07 08 Apr 09 18 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16

El Salvador 1568 AMANECER RURAL 15 Dec 10 09 Mar 12 01 Jun 12 30 Jun 17 31 Dec 17

Grenada 1569 MAREP 05 Dec 10 30 Mar 11 30 Mar 11 31 Mar 17 30 Sep 17

Guatemala 1317 ORIENTE 02 Dec 04 12 Jun 08 01 Dec 08 31 Dec 14 30 Jun 15

Guatemala 1473 PRODERNORTE 17 Dec 08 13 Dec 11 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 30 Sep 18

Guyana 1415 READ 13 Dec 07 24 Jul 08 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15

Haiti 1171 PAIP 23 Apr 02 17 Jun 02 20 Dec 02 31 Dec 14 30 Jun 15

Haiti 1275 PPI 2 14 Dec 06 15 May 07 05 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16

Haiti 1532 PPI 3 08 Sep 12 24 Oct 12 24 Oct 12 31 Dec 17 30 Jun 18

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM 13 Dec 07 11 Mar 08 17 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16

Honduras 1535 EMPRENDE SUR 16 Sep 10 23 Nov 10 01 Feb 11 31 Mar 17 30 Sep 17

Honduras 1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE 29 Aug 11 22 Sep 11 21 Feb 12 31 Mar 18 30 Sep 18

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS 08 Sep 05 09 Mar 06 01 Sep 06 31 Dec 13 31 Mar 14

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS 15 Sep 09 23 Mar 11 23 Mar 11 31 Mar 16 30 Sep 16

Mexico 1597 LAS MIXTECAS 03 Apr 12 29 Nov 12 29 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 30 Jun 19

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL 12 Sep 07 22 Jan 08 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 31 Mar 16

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBA 15 Dec 10 27 Sep 11 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 30 Sep 17

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA 24 Apr 08 15 Jul 08 31 Mar 10 31 Mar 16 30 Sep 16

Paraguay 1333 PARAGUAY RURAL 19 Apr 05 22 Jun 06 30 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14

Paraguay 1611 PARAGUAY INCLUSIVO 02 Apr 12 01 Aug 12 26 Feb 13 31 Mar 18 30 Sep 18

Peru 1240 SIERRA SUR 11 Dec 02 11 Oct 04 22 Apr 05 31 Dec 13 30 Jun 14

Peru 1352 SIERRA NORTE 13 Dec 07 23 Feb 09 23 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 31 Mar 15

Peru 1498 SIERRA Y SELVA ALTA 21 Sep 12 20 Feb 13 20 Feb 13 31 Mar 18 30 Sep 18

Venezuela 1252 PROSALAFA II 18 Dec 03 29 Dec 05 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14

Venezuela 1404 WARAO 17 Dec 08 31 Dec 09 19 Oct 10 31 Dec 17 30 Jun 18

No. of projects - 42

Not Signed

Brazil 1563 DOM TAVORA (Sergipe) 21 Sep 12

Venezuela 1609 PROSANESU 10 Dec 12

No. of projects - 2

Not Effective

Bolivia 1598 ACCESOS 26 Mar 13

No. of projects - 1

Total no. of projects - 45

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

3

Table 3: Current investment portfolio - IFAD financing by sub-region: 2011 – 2013

Sub-region

June 2011 June 2012 June 2013

(USD'000) % No. of

projects (USD'000) %

No. of projects

(USD'000) % No. of projects

MCAC 354 699 56 25

342 917 50 24

294 917 43 22

Andean 129 882 21 9

195 678 29 12

222 676 33 14

Southern Cone 147 457 23 7

147 771 22 8

165 421 24 9

Total 632 038 100 41 686 366 100 44 683 014 100 45

Table 4: Current investment portfolio - IFAD financing by impact domain and sub-region: 2009–2013

USD M % USD M % USD M % USD M % USD M % USD M % USD M % USD M % % change

Social Development 23 18 82 22 54 34 159 24 55 24 66 22 65 39 186 27 + 17

Market and Rural Enterprises Dev. 34 27 73 20 46 29 153 23 61 28 85 29 49 30 195 29 + 28

Management, M&E 17 13 74 20 23 14 114 17 25 11 53 18 16 10 94 14 - 18

Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries Dev. 16 13 65 18 20 12 102 16 31 14 23 8 22 13 76 11 - 26

Enviroment & Common RR 21 17 25 7 1 0.3 47 7 22 10 21 7 2 1 45 7 - 4

Financial Assets 10 8 21 6 14 9 45 7 20 9 22 7 8 5 50 7 + 11

Physical Assets 1 0.5 18 5 0.4 0.2 19 3 4 2 12 4 17 2 - 12

Institutional development 1 1 11 3 2 1 14 2 1 0.4 12 4 2 1 15 2 + 7

Human Development 2 1 1 0.3 0.5 0.3 3 0.5 3 1 1 0.3 1 0.5 4 1 + 31

Others 1 1 1 0.2

Total 124 100 371 100 162 100 657 100 223 100 295 100 165 100 683 100

MCAC Southern Cone TotalImpact domain

June 2009

Andean MCAC Southern Cone Total Andean

June 2013

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

4

Table 5: Current investment portfolio: 2000 – 2013

Sub-region /

country Project

Lending

terms

IFAD financing

(USD '000)

No. of

projects

Project

average size

(USD '000)

Share in total

IFAD financing

(%)

ProjectLending

terms

IFAD financing (USD

'000)

No. of

projects

Project

average size

(USD '000)

Share in total

IFAD financing

(%)

SOUTHERN CONE 143 145 9 15 905 21% 165 421 9 18 380 24%

Argentina 34 015 2 17 008 47 155 3 15 718

506 PRODERNEA O 16 515 1610 PRODERI O 7 814

1098 PRODERNOA O 17 500 1297 PRODERPA O 20 000

1364 PRODEAR O 19 341

Brazil 63 059 3 21 020 93 150 4 23 288

344 Low-income Family Support O 17 941 1619 Paulo Freire Project O 32 150

493 Community Dev. Rio Gaviao O 20 118 1486 Viva o Semi Árido O 20 000

1101 Dom Helder Camara O 25 000 1847 PROCASE O 25 000

1563 Dom Tavora O 16 000

Chile 12 235 1 12 235

427 IV Region Project O 12 235

Paraguay 22 115 2 11 058 25 116 2 12 558

310 Peasant Develop. Fund NE O 12 115 1333 Paraguay Rural HT/I 15 116

496 Peasant Development Fund O 10 000 1611 Paraguay Inclusivo (PPI) O 10 000

Uruguay 11 721 1 11 721

332 Nat. Smallholder Support O 11 721

ANDEAN 130 979 11 11 907 20% 222 676 14 15 905 33%

Bolivia 21 939 3 7 313 33 231 3 11 077

354 Camelid Producers Dev. HC 7 580 1298 VALE PROJECT HC 7 233

373 Beni Indigenous People HC 6 260 1490 Plan vida PEEP HC 7 998

1031 Small Farmers Tech. Asst. HC 8 099 1598 ACCESOS I 18 000

Colombia 16 000 1 16 000 50 536 2 25 268

520 Rural Micro-enterprise O 16 000 1294 OPORTUNIDADES I 20 000

1491 TOP O 30 536

Ecuador 33 700 3 11 233 44 925 3 14 975

275 Upper Basin Cañar Project I 6 700 1297 Central Corridor HC 14 842

321 Saraguro-Yacuambi I 12 000 1354 Ibarra-San Lorenzo O 12 787

1043 Indigeneous Peoples Dev. I 15 000 1588 BUEN VIVIR RURAL O 17 296

Peru 31 201 2 15 601 58 984 3 19 661

475 Mgmnt of Natural Resource I 12 278 1240 Sierra Sur O 24 586

1044 Puno Cusco Corridor Dev. O 18 923 1352 Sierra Norte O 14 400

1498 Highlands Local Dvplmt O 19 998

Venezuela 28 139 2 14 070 35 000 3 11 667

279 Falcon & Lara Project O 16 152 1252 PROSALAFA II O 15 000

521 PRODECOP O 11 987 1404 Warao Support Prog. O 13 000

1609 PROSANESU O 7 000

June 2000 June 2013

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

5

Sub-region/

country Project

Lending

terms

IFAD financing

(USD '000)

No. of

projects

Project

average size

(USD '000)

Sub-regional

share of total

IFAD financing

(%)

ProjectLending

terms

IFAD financing (USD

'000)

No. of

projects

Project

average size

(USD '000)

Sub-regional

share of total

IFAD financing

(%)

MCAC 371 314 31 11 978 58% 294 917 22 13 716 43%

Belize 2 293 1 2 293 3 000 1 3 000

1067 Community-initiated Agric O 2 293 1456 RFP O 3 000

Costa Rica 5 000 1 5 000

371 Agricultural Dev. Nicoya O 5 000

Dominica 2 641 1 2 641

503 Rural Enterprise Project I 2 641

Dominican Republic 18 000 2 9 000 27 800 2 13 900

345 Ag. Dev. San Juan Maguana I 6 000 1479 PRORURAL OESTE O 13 800

1068 PROPESUR I 12 000 1533 Prorural Centro y Este O 14 000

El Salvador 52 987 4 13 247 47 559 3 15 853

267 Paracentral Project I 9 000 1321 PRODEMORO O 15 999

322 Chalantenango Rehab & Dev I 12 987 1416 PRODEMOR-CENTRAL O 14 560

1069 PRODERNOR I 18 000 1568 Amanecer Rural O 17 000

1115 PRODAP-II I 13 000

Grenada 3 000 1 3 000

1569 MAREP O 3 000

Guatemala 37 504 3 12 501 35 423 2 17 712

296 Cuchumatanes Highlands I 7 500 1317 Central & Eastern Regions I 17 000

1008 PRODERQUI I 15 000 1473 PRODENORTE O 18 423

1085 PRODEVER I 15 004

Guyana 10 500 1 10 500 5 760 1 5 760

1009 Poor Rural Communities HC 10 500 1415 READ DHC 5 760

Haiti 25 929 2 12 965 61 067 3 20 356

241 Small-Scale Irrigation HC 10 572 1171 PAIP HC 29 195

1070 Food Crops Intensif. II HC 15 357 1275 PPI-2 HC/D 18 672

1532 PPI 3 D 13 200

Honduras 55 766 4 13 942 28 107 3 9 369

336 PLANDERO (Western Reg.) HC 7 682 1407 PROMECOM HC 9 385

1032 PRODERCO HC 12 284 1535 Emprende Sur HC 10 000

1087 PROSOC HC 19 300 1595 Horizontes del Norte HC 8 722

1128 FONADERS HC 16 500

Mexico 90 415 4 22 604 50 673 3 16 891

270 Ixtlera Project O 30 000 1349 PRODESNOS O 24 973

303 Rural Development Project O 25 000 1412 Community-based Forestry O 5 000

494 Rural Dev. Mayan Comm. O 10 415 1597 Las Mixtecas O 20 700

1141 Rural Dev. Rubber O 25 000

Nicaragua 37 868 3 12 623 28 328 2 14 164

346 Tropisec Area (Segovias) HC 11 424 1380 PROCAVAL DHC 20 328

495 Rural Dev. S. Pacific Dry HC 12 244 1505 NICARIBE DHC 8 000

1120 Technical Assistance Fund HC 14 200

Panama 28 023 3 9 341 4 200 1 4 200

331 Rural Dev Ngobe Comm.ties O 7 859 1389 PARTICIPA O 4 200

474 Darien Project O 7 916

1049 Cocle, Colon & Panama W. O 12 248

Saint Lucia 2 173 1 2 173

504 Rural Enterprise Project I 2 173

St Vincent - Grenadines 2 215 1 2 215

295 Smallholder Crop Improv. I 2 215

Total 645 438 51 12 888 100% 683 014 45 15 128 100%

June 2000 June 2013

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

6

Table 6: GEF financing: June 2013

Grant titleGEF financing

USD '000

Effectiveness

date

Current

completion

date

Cumulative

disbursement

USD '000

Status

Sustainable land management in the semi-arid sertão 5 843 16 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 5 843 Project implemented satisfactorily. Started to plan for project completion (Sep

2013) and GEF Terminal Evaluation (by March 2014)

Sustainable management of biodiversity and water resources in

the Ibarra-San Lorenzo Corridor

2 700 16 Nov 11 31 Mar 17 500 Activities started in April 2012. Together with associated IFAD project, GEF

grant needs frequent implementation support and continuous dialogue with

concerned government institutions.

Competitiveness and Sustainable Rural Development Project in

the Northern Zone

3 000 Endorsed by GEF CEO in April 2013 and approved by IFAD in May 2013.

Financing agreement negotiation ongoing. Start up expected Q III 2013

Mitigating climate change through sustainable forest management

and capacity building in in the Southern states of Mexico

(Campeche, Chiapas and Oaxaca)

5 000 27 Mar 12 31 Mar 16 Start-up of activities expected for Q III 2013 (delayed due to lengthy finalisation

of subsidiary agreement between NAFIN and CONAFOR and transition to new

government).

Sustainable and climate-friendly development in Veraguas province 1 500 02 May 13 01 Jun 16 Financing agreement has been signed in May 2013 and project start up is

foreseen for Q III 2013

Sustainable management of protected areas and forests of the

Northern highlands of Peru

1 720 26 Sep 11 30 Sep 15 1 150 Activities started at the beginning of 2012 and implementation is porceeding

smoothly. First supervision mission carried out in November/December 2012.

Next supervision mission planned for Q III 2013.

Conservation and Sustainable Use of High-Andean Ecosystems of

Peru through Compensation of Environmental Services for Rural

Poverty Alleviation and Social Inclusion

5 356 Endorsed by GEF CEO in July 2013. Finalisation of financing agreement

expected for Q III 2013

Promotion of Sustainable and Climate-compatible Rural

Development in Lara and Falcon States

3 635 14 Jun 13 31 Dec 17 Effective in June 2013. Started to plan for start up of activities, expected for Q IV

2013

28 754 7 493

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

7

Table 7: Current investment portfolio by type of co-financier and sub-region (US$'000): June 2013

Type of co-financier Andean MCAC Southern

Cone Total %

Regional financial institutions 19 000 23 914 42 914 12

BCIE 21 912 21 912

CAF 19 000 19 000

CDB 2 002 2 002

Multilateral organizations 13 411 86 620 5 843 105 874 30

OPEC Fund 76 772 76 772

GEF 13 411 9 500 5 843 28 754

IICA 348 348

Bilateral organizations/funds 64 949 46 000 58 000 168 949 48

STF 64 949 46 000 58 000 168 949

Other 11 356 14 366 9 035 34 757 10

Domestic financial institutions 10 356 14 366 5 161 29 883

NGOs 1 000 1 000

Private sector 3 874 3 874

Total 108 716 170 900 72 878 352 494 100

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

8

Table 8: Current investment portfolio - co-financing ratio by country: June 2013

(USD'000) % (USD'000) % (USD'000) %

Andean 222 676 52 109 937 26 93 004 22 425 617 0.49 0.42 0.91

Bolivia 33 231 52 15 635 24 15 000 23 63 866 0.47 0.45 0.92

Colombia 50 536 59 15 743 18 19 949 23 86 228 0.31 0.39 0.71

Ecuador 44 925 52 23 059 27 17 700 21 85 684 0.51 0.39 0.91

Peru 58 984 72 19 900 24 2 720 3 81 604 0.34 0.05 0.38

Venezuela 35 000 32 35 600 33 37 635 35 108 235 1.02 1.08 2.09

MCAC 294 917 55 80 361 15 164 534 30 539 812 0.27 0.56 0.83

Belize 3 000 53 732 13 1 906 34 5 638 0.24 0.64 0.88

Dominican Republic 27 800 43 10 310 16 26 000 41 64 110 0.37 0.94 1.31

El Salvador 47 559 54 10 770 12 30 000 34 88 329 0.23 0.63 0.86

Grenada 3 000 41 2 227 31 2 002 28 7 229 0.74 0.67 1.41

Guatemala 35 423 51 8 349 12 25 967 37 69 739 0.24 0.73 0.97

Guyana 5 760 87 856 13 6 616 0.15 0.15

Haiti 61 067 76 10 678 13 8 353 10 80 098 0.17 0.14 0.31

Honduras 28 107 40 7 001 10 35 006 50 70 114 0.25 1.25 1.49

Mexico 50 673 55 21 062 23 20 000 22 91 735 0.42 0.39 0.81

Nicaragua 28 328 66 2 376 6 12 000 28 42 704 0.08 0.42 0.51

Panama 4 200 31 6 000 44 3 300 24 13 500 1.43 0.79 2.21

Southern Cone 165 421 41 177 504 44 63 843 16 406 768 1.07 0.39 1.46

Argentina 47 155 25 91 139 48 50 000 27 188 294 1.93 2.99

Brazil 93 150 50 80 416 43 13 843 7 187 409 0.86 0.15 1.01

Paraguay 25 116 81 5 949 19 31 065 0.24 0.24

Total 683 014 50 367 802 27 321 381 23 1 372 197 0.54 0.47 1.01

Gov.+Ext./IF

AD ratio

External co-

financiersTotalCountry

IFAD GovernmentGov/IFAD

ratio

Ext./IFAD

ratio

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

9

Table 9: Approved IFAD and STF financing: 2010 - 2012 PBAS period (US$'000)

1) cf. doc. EB 2009/98/R.56/Add.1 2) The three-year Ecuador PBAS allocation was reduced to US$ 17.296 M in 2010 3) Cancelled in 2013 4) The three-year Venezuela PBAS allocation was reduced to US$ 7.918 M in 2010

IFAD STF IFAD STF IFAD STF IFAD STF Total

Argentina 6 999 7 814 50 000 7 814 50 000 57 814

Bolivia 17 105 18 000 15 000 18 000 15 000 33 000

Brazil 49 002 48 150 8 000 48 150 8 000 56 150

Colombia 31 168 30 536 19 949 30 536 19 949 50 485

Dominica 200

Dominican Republic 14 579 14 000 16 000 14 000 16 000 30 000

Ecuador2)

22 290 17 296 15 000 17 296 15 000 32 296

El Salvador 17 618 17 000 15 000 17 000 15 000 32 000

Grenada 3 000 3 000 3 000 3 000

Guatemala3)

17 957 17 000 17 000 17 000

Guyana 2 316

Haiti 18 262 7 500 13 200 20 700 20 700

Honduras 19 959 10 000 8 722 18 722 18 722

Jamaica 7 306

Mexico 19 404 20 700 15 000 20 700 15 000 35 700

Nicaragua 18 957 8 000 11 300 19 300 19 300

Panama 3 000

Paraguay 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000

Peru 30 215 19 998 19 998 19 998

Suriname 3 000

Venezuela4) 9 389 7 000 15 000 7 000 15 000 22 000

Total 321 726 69 000 70 632 111 000 149 584 57 949 289 216 168 949 458 165

CountryInitial

allocation1)

2010 2011 2012 2010-2012

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

10

Table 10: New investment projects that became effective: 2008 – 2012

CountryProject

IDProject

Lending

terms

No. of

projects

IFAD current

financing

(USD '000)

Approval

date

Effectiveness

date

Current

completion

date

Effectiveness

lag (months)

2011-2012 7 85 253 15

Argentina 1610 PRODERI O 7 814 15 Sep 11 07 Dec 11 31 Dec 17 3

Bolivia 1490 PLAN VIDA HC 7 998 17 Dec 09 10 Aug 11 30 Sep 15 20

Ecuador 1588 BUEN VIVIR O 17 296 15 Sep 11 30 May 12 30 Jun 18 8

El Salvador 1568 AMANECER RURAL O 17 000 15 Dec 10 01 Jun 12 30 Jun 17 18

Guatemala 1473 PRODENORTE O 18 423 17 Dec 08 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 37

Honduras 1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE HC 8 722 29 Aug 11 21 Feb 12 31 Mar 18 6

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBE DHC 8 000 15 Dec 10 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 13

2010-2011 5 43 787 13

Grenada 1569 MAREP O 3 000 05 Dec 10 30 Mar 11 31 Mar 17 4

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS O 5 000 15 Sep 09 23 Mar 11 31 Mar 16 18

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO O 12 787 15 Sep 09 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 18

Honduras 1535 EMPRENDE SUR HC 10 000 16 Sep 10 01 Feb 11 31 Mar 17 5

Venezuela 1404 WARAO O 13 000 17 Dec 08 19 Oct 10 31 Dec 17 22

2009-2010 7 76 570 23

Dominican Republic 1479 PRORURAL OESTE O 13 800 30 Apr 09 26 May 10 30 Jun 16 13

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA O 4 200 24 Apr 08 31 Mar 10 31 Mar 16 23

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR-CENTRAL O 14 560 12 Sep 07 18 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 27

Argentina 1364 PRODEAR O 19 341 14 Dec 06 16 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 36

Bolivia 1298 VALE HC 7 233 14 Dec 06 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 35

Peru 1352 SIERRA NORTE O 14 436 13 Dec 07 23 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 21

Belize 1456 RFP O 3 000 17 Dec 08 01 Sep 09 30 Sep 16 8

2008-2009 6 66 710 25

Guyana 1415 READ DHC 5 760 13 Dec 07 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 13

El Salvador 1321 PRODEMORO O 15 999 19 Apr 05 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 44

Guatemala 1317 ORIENTE I 17 000 02 Dec 04 01 Dec 08 31 Dec 14 48

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM HC 7 135 13 Dec 07 17 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 11

Haiti 1275 PPI 2 HC 13 008 14 Dec 06 05 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 23

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL DHC 7 808 12 Sep 07 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 11



11

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 11: IFAD financing agreements signed for new investment projects: 2008-2012

CountryProject

IDProject

Lending

terms

No. of

projects

IFAD current

financing

(USD '000)

Approval

dateSigning date

Signing lag

(months)

2011-2012 6 77 255 12

Argentina 1610 PRODERI O 7 814 15 Sep 11 25 Nov 11 2

Ecuador 1588 BUEN VIVIR O 17 296 15 Sep 11 30 May 12 8

El Salvador 1568 AMANACER RURAL O 17 000 15 Dec 10 09 Mar 12 15

Guatemala 1473 PRODENORTE O 18 423 17 Dec 08 13 Dec 11 36

Honduras 1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE HC 8 722 29 Aug 11 22 Sep 11 1

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBE DHC 8 000 15 Dec 10 27 Sep 11 9

2010-2011 5 38 785 11

Grenada 1569 MAREP O 3 000 05 Dec 10 30 Mar 11 4

Bolivia 1490 PLAN VIDA HC 7 998 17 Dec 09 17 Mar 11 15

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO O 12 787 15 Sep 09 04 Mar 11 18

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS O 5 000 15 Sep 09 01 Mar 11 17

Honduras 1535 EMPRENDE SUR HC 10 000 16 Sep 10 23 Nov 10 2

2009-2010 2 27 000 7

Dominican Republic 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE O 14 000 22 Apr 10 25 May 10 1

Venezuela 1404 WARAO O 13 000 17 Dec 08 31 Dec 09 12

2008-2009 7 75 097 10

Dominican Republic 1479 OESTE RURAL O 13 800 30 Apr 09 29 Jun 09 2

Belize 1456 RFP O 3 000 17 Dec 08 19 May 09 5

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR-CENTRAL O 14 560 12 Sep 07 08 Apr 09 19

Peru 1352 SIERRA NORTE O 14 436 13 Dec 07 23 Feb 09 14

Argentina 1364 PRODEAR O 19 341 14 Dec 06 17 Oct 08 22

Guyana 1415 READ DHC 5 760 13 Dec 07 24 Jul 08 7

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA O 4 200 24 Apr 08 15 Jul 08 3

42 501 15.2

Guatemala 1317 Central & Eastern Regions I 17 000 02 Dec 04 12 Jun 08 42.3

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM HC 9 240 13 Dec 07 11 Mar 08 2.9

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL DHC 9 028 12 Sep 07 22 Jan 08 4.3

Bolivia 1298 VALE PROJECT HC 7 233 14 Dec 06 22 Nov 07 11.3

2007 - 2008 Review Period



12

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 12: Delays in signing and effectiveness - IFAD financing agreements: 2009–2013

1) Cancelled

CountryProject

IDProject

Lending

terms

No. of

projects

IFAD current

financing

(USD '000)

Approval

dateSigning date

Signing lag

(months)

Effectiveness

lag (months)

Agreements NOT SIGNED more than two months after approval 7 141 236 15

Bol ivia 1598 ACCESOS I 18 000 13 Dec 11 7

Brazi l 1487 PROCASE (Para iba) O 25 000 17 Dec 09 30

Brazi l 1486 VIVA O SEMI ÁRIDO (Piauí) O 20 000 15 Sep 09 34

Colombia 1491 TOP O 30 536 03 Apr 12 3

Guatemala 1519 QUICHE1) O 17 000 22 Apr 10 26

Mexico 1597 LAS MIXTECAS O 20 700 03 Apr 12 3

Paraguay 1611 PARAGUAY INCLUSIVO O 10 000 02 Apr 12 3

Projects NOT EFFECTIVE more than four months after signing 1 14 000 13

Dominican Republ ic 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE O 14 000 22 Apr 10 25 May 10 25


El Sa lvador 1568 AMANECER RURAL O 17 000 15 Dec 10 6

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBE DHC 8 000 15 Dec 10 6

Guatemala 1519 QUICHE O 17 000 22 Apr 10 14

Guatemala 1473 PRODENORTE O 18 423 17 Dec 08 30

Brazi l 1487 PROCASE O 25 000 17 Dec 09 18



Dominican Republ ic 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE O 14 000 22 Apr 10 25 May 10 13


Guatemala 1519 QUICHE O 17 000 22 Apr 10 2

Bol ivia 1490 PLAN VIDA HC 7 998 17 Dec 09 6

Brazi l 1487 PROCASE O 25 000 17 Dec 09 6


Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO O 12 787 15 Sep 09 9

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS O 5 000 15 Sep 09 9

Guatemala 1473 PRODENORTE O 18 423 17 Dec 08 18

Costa Rica 1417 PRONADEM O 9 189 11 Sep 08 22


Venezuela 1404 WARAO O 13 000 17 Dec 08 31 Dec 09 6

Brazi l 1194 XINGÓ1) O 23 155 02 Dec 04 08 Dec 06 43

2011 - 2012

2010 - 2011

2009 - 2010

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

13

Table 13: IFAD financing agreements not signed more than two months after approval: June 2013

Country Project ID Project No. of

operations

Lending

terms

Current

financing

(USD '000)

Approval

date

Time

since

approval

(months)

Expected

signing date

2 23 000 8

Brazil 1563 DOM TAVORA (Sergipe) O 16 000 21 Sep 12 9 Sept/Oct 2013

Venezuela 1609 PROSANESU O 7 000 10 Dec 12 7 Oct 2013

1 15 000 7

Venezuela 1609 PROSANESU O 15 000 10 Dec 12 7 Oct 2013

1 3 000 4

Honduras 1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE G 3 000 16 Feb 13 4 Sept/Oct 2013

Total 4 41 000 average 7

New IFAD financed projects

STF co-financing

GEF co-financing



14

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 14: Investment projects completed during the review period: 2008 – 2013

CountryProject

IDProject

Effect.

data

Original

completion

date

Original

project

duration

(years)

Disbursed at

original

completion

date (%)

Current

completion

Date

Actual project

duration

(years)

Total

disbursed

at closure

No. of

extensions

Brazil 1335 Gente de Valor 11 Dec 06 31 Dec 12 6 91% 31 Dec 12 6

Guatemala 1274 OCCIDENTE 20 Oct 06 31 Dec 12 6 26% 31 Dec 12 6

Nicaragua 1120 FAT 20 Jun 01 30 Jun 13 12 95% 30 Jun 13 12

Average 8.1 8.1

Argentina 1098 PRODERNOA 04 Mar 03 31 Mar 08 5 28% 31 Dec 11 9 89% 3

El Salvador 1215 PREMODER 23 Dec 02 31 Dec 08 6 69% 31 Dec 11 9 100% 3

Guatemala 1085 PRODEVER 06 Sep 01 30 Sep 11 10 97% 30 Sep 11 10 97%

Panama 1199 Ngöbe-Buglé 16 Sep 03 30 Sep 11 8 75% 30 Sep 11 8 75%

Average 7.6 8.6

Peru 1240 SIERRA SUR 22 Apr 05 30 Jun 11 6 95% 30 Jun 11 6 95%

Uruguay 1161 Uruguay Rural 04 Sep 01 30 Sep 07 6 37% 31 Mar 11 10 92% 2

Nicaragua 1256 PRODESEC 17 Aug 04 30 Sep 10 6 55% 31 Dec 10 6 66% 1

Mexico 1268 MICROCUENCAS 18 Jun 05 30 Jun 11 6 100% 21 Dec 10 6 100%

Bolivia 1145 PROMARENA 22 Aug 03 30 Sep 08 5 43% 30 Sep 10 7 82% 2

Haiti 1070 PICV II 05 Sep 01 30 Sep 09 8 88% 30 Sep 10 9 93% 1

Average 6.3 7.3

Brazil 1101 Dom Helder Camara 21 Dec 00 31 Dec 06 6 46% 31 Dec 09 9 95% 2

Mexico 1141 HULE 21 Dec 01 31 Dec 09 8 90% 31 Dec 09 8 90%

Honduras 1128 FONADERS 03 Jul 00 30 Sep 06 6 79% 30 Nov 09 9 98% 2

Honduras 1198 PRONADEL 05 Oct 01 31 Dec 07 6 56% 30 Nov 09 8 92% 2

Venezuela 1186 Barlovento 29 Jul 03 30 Sep 09 6 59% 30 Sep 09 6 59%

Average 6.5 8.2

Grenada 1181 Rural Enterprise Project 03 Oct 02 31 Dec 08 6.2 45% 30 Jun 09 6.7 65% 1

2012-13

2011-12

2010-11

2009-10

2008-09



15

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 15: Time overrun of investment projects: June 2013

(months) (%)

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA 10 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 6 1 6 8%

Argentina 1364 PRODEAR 16 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 31 Dec 15 6

Argentina 1610 PRODERI 07 Dec 11 31 Dec 17 31 Dec 17 6

Belize 1456 RFP 01 Sep 09 30 Sep 16 30 Sep 16 7

Bolivia 1298 VALE PROJECT 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 31 Dec 15 6

Bolivia 1490 PLAN VIDA 10 Aug 11 30 Sep 15 30 Sep 15 4

Brazil 1486 VIVA O SEMI ÁRIDO Piauí) 09 Apr 13 30 Jun 20 30 Jun 20 7

Brazil 1487 PROCASE (Paraíba) 17 Oct 12 31 Dec 18 31 Dec 18 6

Brazil 1619 PAULO FREIRE (Ceará) 27 Jun 13 30 Jun 19 30 Jun 19 6

Colombia 1294 OPORTUNIDADES 28 Jun 07 30 Jun 13 31 Dec 13 6 1 6 8%

Colombia 1491 TOP 13 Dec 12 31 Dec 17 31 Dec 17 5

Dominican Republic 1479 PRORURAL OESTE 26 May 10 30 Jun 16 30 Jun 16 6

Dominican Republic 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE 04 Sep 12 30 Sep 18 30 Sep 18 6

Ecuador 1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL 25 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 30 Jun 14 6 1 9 12%

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 30 Mar 17 6

Ecuador 1588 BUEN VIVIR RURAL 30 May 12 30 Jun 18 30 Jun 18 6

El Salvador 1321 PRODEMORO 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 31 Dec 16 8

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR-CENTRAL 18 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 31 Dec 15 6

El Salvador 1568 AMANECER RURAL 01 Jun 12 30 Jun 17 30 Jun 17 5

Grenada 1569 MAREP 30 Mar 11 31 Mar 17 31 Mar 17 6

Guatemala 1317 ORIENTE 01 Dec 08 31 Dec 14 31 Dec 14 6

Guatemala 1473 PRODENORTE 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 31 Mar 18 6

Guyana 1415 READ 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 31 Mar 15 6

Haiti 1171 PAIP 20 Dec 02 31 Dec 12 31 Dec 14 10 1 24 20%

Haiti 1275 PPI 2 05 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 31 Dec 15 7

Haiti 1532 PPI 3 24 Oct 12 31 Dec 17 31 Dec 17 5

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM 17 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 31 Dec 15 7

Honduras 1535 EMPRENDE SUR 01 Feb 11 31 Mar 17 31 Mar 17 6

Honduras 1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE 21 Feb 12 31 Mar 18 31 Mar 18 6

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS 01 Sep 06 30 Sep 12 31 Dec 13 6 2 15 21%

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS 23 Mar 11 31 Mar 16 31 Mar 16 5

Mexico 1597 LAS MIXTECAS 29 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 31 Dec 18 6

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 30 Sep 15 7

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBE 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 31 Mar 17 5

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA 31 Mar 10 31 Mar 16 31 Mar 16 6

Paraguay 1333 PARAGUAY RURAL 30 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 30 Sep 13 6

Paraguay 1611 PARAGUAY INCLUSIVO 26 Feb 13 31 Mar 18 31 Mar 18 5

Peru 1240 SIERRA SUR 22 Apr 05 30 Jun 11 31 Dec 13 6 1 30 40%

Peru 1352 SIERRA NORTE 23 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 30 Sep 14 5

Peru 1498 SIERRA Y SELVA ALTA 20 Feb 13 31 Mar 18 31 Mar 18 5

Venezuela 1252 PROSALAFA II 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 12 30 Sep 13 6 1 12 16%

Venezuela 1404 WARAO 19 Oct 10 31 Dec 17 31 Dec 17 7

On-going portfolio overall3%

CountryProject

IDProject

Effectivenes

s date

Original

completion

date

Current

completion

date

Original project

duration

(years)

No. of

extensions

Time overrun



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

16

Table 16: Project extensions: 2012 – 2013

No.Length

(months)

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA 10 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 1 6 1

Colombia 1294 OPORTUNIDADES 28 Jun 07 30 Jun 13 31 Dec 13 1 6 1

Ecuador 1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL 25 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 30 Jun 14 1 9 1

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS 01 Sep 06 30 Sep 12 31 Dec 13 2 15 2

Venezuela 1252 PROSALAFA II 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 12 30 Sep 13 1 12 1

Current

completion date

(June 2013)

Original

completion date

Total no. of

extensions

Extensions in the review

periodCountry Project ID Project

Effectiveness

date

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

17

Table 17: Current grant portfolio: June 2013

SR: small regional; LR: large regional; SC: small country; LC: large country

Project Grant no. TypeApproval

date

Effective

date

Current

completion

date

Current

closing

date

Amount

(USD'000)

Know ledge Management in the North eastern Semi-Arid Region of Brazil COFIN-SP-16-IICA LC 27 Apr 11 30 May 11 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 4 133

Know ledge Sharing on Food Security in Haiti/Dominican Republic COFIN-SEC-825-FAO SR 02 Nov 11 13 Jan 12 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 500

Peru as a Learning Territory COFIN-FN-1336-FUNDA-K LC 17 Apr 12 17 Apr 12 31 Dec 13 30 Sep 14 100

Sustainable Land Management in the semiarid (project BR 1101) GEF-FSP-2-BR LC 14 Dec 05 06 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 5 843

Sust. Mgmt. of Biodiversity and Water in Ibarra-San Lorenzo (project EC 1354) GEF-FSP-21-EC LC 04 May 11 16 Nov 11 31 Mar 17 30 Sep 17 2 700

Sust. Mgmt of Protected Areas of the Northern Highlands of Peru (project PE 1352) GEF-FSP-22-PER LC 08 Jul 11 26 Sep 11 30 Sep 15 30 Jun 16 1 720

Mitigación del Cambio Climático en el Sur de México (project MX 1412) GEF-FSP-28-MX LC 18 Oct 11 27 Mar 12 31 Mar 16 30 Sep 16 5 000

Sust. And climate friendly Devpt in Veraguas (project PA 1389) GEF-FSP-024-PA LC 13 Feb 12 28 Jun 13 30 Jun 17 31 Dec 17 1 500

Soc. Integral devpt and interrleation w ith CC in w atersheds (project VE 1252) GEF -FSP-23-VE LC 27 Sep 12 14 Jun 13 30 Jun 17 31 Dec 17 3 635

PRODEMORO (project SV 1321) LC-784-SV LC 19 Apr 05 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 30 Jun 17 1 000

PRODERNORTE (project GT 1473) LC-1070-GT SC 17 Dec 08 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 30 Sep 18 450

SIERRA SUR (project PE 1240) LC-1158-PE SC 17 Dec 09 19 Aug 10 31 Dec 13 30 Jun 14 330

TOP (project CO 1491) LC-1360-CO LC 03 Apr 12 17 Dec 12 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 617

LAS MIXTECAS (project MX 1597) LC-1361-MX LC 03 Apr 12 21 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 30 Jun 19 2 000

Young Rural Women in LAC in the 21st Century TAG-1250-IEP LR 05 Dec 10 01 Apr 11 31 Oct 13 30 Apr 14 750

Market Access Programme for Rural Associative SME's in Central America TAG-1256-AGEXPORT LR 15 Dec 10 11 Mar 11 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 2 000

Building and Scaling-Up Know ledge on High Andean Livestock TAG-1292-FUNDABIO SR 27 Jun 11 08 Jul 11 30 Sep 13 30 Jun 14 497

Strengthening community mgmt. in support of REDD+ in Mesoamerica TAG-1303-NAFIN LR 29 Aug 11 14 Jun 13 30 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 1 200

Promoting Young People's Entrepreneurship in Poor Rural Areas of LAC TAG-1305-PROCASUR LR 29 Aug 11 11 Nov 11 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 2 000

Public Policy Dialogue on Family Farming in the Southern Cone of LAC TAG-1326-CLAEH LR 27 Nov 11 01 Mar 12 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15 1 800

Peru as a Learning Territory TAG-1336-FUNDA-K SR 03 Dec 11 22 Dec 11 31 Dec 13 30 Sep 14 250

LAC-Brazil Agricultural Innovation Marketplace TAG-1334-FUNARBE SC 05 Dec 11 15 Dec 11 31 Dec 14 30 Sep 15 500

Legal Preparedness for Climate Change and Rural Development in LAC TAG-1344-IDLO SR 20 Dec 11 22 Dec 11 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 249

Cooperativa de Mujeres 4Pinos TAG-1346-4Pinos SC 20 Dec 11 22 Dec 11 31 Dec 13 30 Sep 14 250

Regional Programme in Support of Rural Populations of African descent in LAC TAG-1369-ACUA LR 05 May 12 25 Jul 12 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15 1 750

Programme on Conditional Cash Transfers and Rural Development in LAC TAG-1373-UNIANDES LR 05 May 12 22 May 12 30 Jun 15 31 Dec 15 1 750

Broadening Economic Opportunities for Rural Women Entrepreneurs in LAC TAG-1385-UNWOMEN LR 12 Aug 12 15 Apr 13 30 Jun 16 31 Dec 16 2 500

Rural development and Fiscal policy TAG-1415-ICEFI SR 11 Dec 12 12 Feb 13 31 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 499

Smallholders Climate-Smart Agricultural Prod. and Marketing in English Caribbean TAG-1422-IICA SR 17 Dec 12 15 Jan 13 30 Sep 14 30 Jun 15 300

Information mgmt. for policies and projects of rural dvpt. and food security in CAC TAG-1424-CEPAL SR 17 Dec 12 04 Mar 13 31 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 400

Ongoing 30 grants 46 222

Approved not effective n.a. n.a.

Total current portfolio 30 grants 46 222



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

18

Table 18: Maturity of current grant portfolio: 2012–2013 review period

No. of

projects%

%

Cumulative

No. of

projects%

%

Cumulative

IFAD financing 23 100% 21 100%

Not effective 4 17% 17%

< 1 year 9 39% 57% 8 38% 38%

< 2 years 4 17% 74% 9 43% 81%

< 3 years 3 13% 87% 3 14% 95%

>= 3 years 3 13% 100% 1 5% 100%

External financing 9 100% 9 100%


< 1 year 5 56% 78% 2 22% 22%

< 2 years 2 22% 100% 5 56% 78%

< 3 years 100% 1 11% 89%

>= 3 years 100% 1 11% 100%

Total 32 100% 30 100%


< 1 year 14 44% 63% 10 33% 33%

< 2 years 6 19% 81% 14 47% 80%

< 3 years 3 9% 91% 4 13% 93%

>= 3 years 3 9% 100% 2 7% 100%

Age structure

2012 2013

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

19

Table 19: On-going grant portfolio by grant policy output: June 2013

Policy Output / Grant Grant no.Approval

date

Effectiveness

date

Current

completion

date

Current

closing

date

Amount

(USD)

Awareness, advocacy and policy dialogue on issues of importance to poor rural people 2 grants 3 550

Public Policy Dialogue on Family Farming in the Southern Cone of LAC TAG-1326-CLAEH 27 Nov 11 27 Nov 11 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15 1 800

Programme on Conditional Cash Transfers and Rural Development in LAC TAG-1373-UNIANDES 05 May 12 22 May 12 30 Jun 15 31 Dec 15 1 750

Capacity of partner institutions strengthened to deliver a range of services in support of poor rural people 1 grant 1 200

Strengthening community mgmt. in support of REDD+ in Mesoamerica TAG-1303-NAFIN 29 Aug 11 14 Jun 13 30 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 1 200

Innovative activities promoted and innovative technologies and approaches developed in support of IFAD’s target group 6 grants 8 749

Market Access Programme for Rural Associative SME's in Central America TAG-1256-AGEXPORT 15 Dec 10 11 Mar 11 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 2 000

Promoting Young People's Entrepreneurship in Poor Rural Areas of LAC TAG-1305-PROCASUR 29 Aug 11 11 Nov 11 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 2 000

Cooperativa de Mujeres 4Pinos TAG-1346-4PINOS 20 Dec 11 22 Dec 11 31 Dec 13 30 Sep 14 250

Legal Preparedness for Climate Change and Rural Development in LAC TAG-1344-IDLO 20 Dec 11 22 Dec 11 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 249

Regional Programme in Support of Rural Populations of African descent in Latin America TAG-1369-ACUA 05 May 12 25 Jul 12 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15 1 750

Broadening Economic Opportunities for Rural Women Entrepreneurs in LAC TAG-1385-UNWOMEN 12 Aug 12 15 Apr 13 30 Jun 16 31 Dec 16 2 500

Lesson learning, knowledge management and dissemination of information on issues related to rural poverty reduction 10 grants 8 028

Young Rural Women in LAC in the 21st Century TAG-1250-IEP 05 Dec 10 01 Apr 11 31 Oct 13 30 Apr 14 750

Building and Scaling-Up Know ledge on High Andean Livestock TAG-1292-FUNDABIO 27 Jun 11 08 Jul 11 30 Sep 13 30 Jun 14 497

LAC-Brazil Agricultural Innovation Marketplace TAG-1334-FUNARBE 05 Dec 11 15 Dec 11 31 Dec 14 30 Sep 15 500

Peru as a Learning Territory TAG-1336-FUNDA-K 03 Dec 11 22 Dec 11 31 Dec 13 30 Sep 14 350

Rural development and Fiscal policy TAG-1415-ICEFI 11 Dec 12 12 Feb 13 31 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 499

Information mgmt. for policies and projects of rural dvpt. and food security in CAC TAG-1424-CEPAL 17 Dec 12 04 Mar 13 31 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 400

Smallholders Climate-Smart Agricultural Prod. and Marketing in English Caribbean TAG-1422-IICA 17 Dec 12 15 Jan 13 30 Sep 14 30 Jun 15 300

Peru as a Learning Territory COFIN-FN-1336-FUNDA-K 17 Apr 12 17 Apr 12 31 Dec 13 30 Sep 14 100

Know ledge Sharing on Food Security in Haiti/Dominican Republic COFIN-SEC-825-FAO 02 Nov 11 13 Jan 12 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 500

Know ledge Management in the North eastern Semi-Arid Region of Brazil COFIN-SP-16-IICA 27 Apr 11 30 May 11 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 4 133

Total 19 grants 21 527



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

20

Table 20: Grant financing approved: 2012–2013 review period

INNOV: Innovative activities promoted and innovative technologies and approaches developed in support of IFAD‘s target group LL&KM: Lesson learning, knowledge management and dissemination of information on issues related to rural poverty reduction promoted among stakeholders

Table 21: Grants that became effective: 2012-13 review period

Grant Grant no.Approval

date

Effectiveness

date

Completion

date

Closing

date

Effectiveness

lag (months)

Amount

(USD'000)

Disbursed

(USD'000)

Disburs. %

30/06/13

Stand-alone grants (IFAD and external financing) 6 grants average 6.3 6 649 927 14

Strengthening community mgmt. in support of REDD+ in Mesoamerica TAG-1303-NAFIN 29 Aug 11 14 Jun 13 30 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 21.5 1 200 383 32

Regional Programme in Support of Rural Populations of African descent in Latin America TAG-1369-ACUA 05 May 12 25 Jul 12 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15 2.7 1 750 100 6

Broadening Economic Opportunities for Rural Women Entrepreneurs in LAC TAG-1385-UNWOMEN 12 Aug 12 15 Apr 13 30 Jun 16 31 Dec 16 8.1 2 500

Rural development and Fiscal policy TAG-1415-ICEFI 11 Dec 12 12 Feb 13 31 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 2.1 499 224 45

Smallholders Climate-Smart Agricultural Prod. and Marketing in English Caribbean TAG-1422-IICA 17 Dec 12 15 Jan 13 30 Sep 14 30 Jun 15 1.0 300

Information mgmt. for policies and projects of rural dvpt. and food security in CAC TAG-1424-CEPAL 17 Dec 12 04 Mar 13 31 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 2.5 400 220 55

GEF 2 grants average 12.5

Sust. And climate friendly Devpt in Veraguas (Project PA 1389) GEF-FSP-024-PA 13 Feb 12 28 Jun 13 30 Jun 17 31 Dec 17 16.5 1 500

Soc. Integral devpt and interrleation w ith CC in w atersheds in Lara&Falcon (Project VE 1252) GEF -FSP-23-VE 27 Sep 12 14 Jun 13 30 Jun 17 31 Dec 17 8.5 3 635

IFAD LCG 2 grants average 8.1 2 617

TOP (project CO 1491) LC-1360-CO 03 Apr 12 17 Dec 12 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 8.5 617

LAS MIXTECAS (project MX 1597) LC-1361-MX 03 Apr 12 21 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 30 Jun 19 7.6 2 000

Total 10 grants average 7.9 12 901 927 7

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

21

Table 22: Grant disbursement rates: 30 June 2013

Grant no.Approval

date

Effective

date

Completion

date

Planned

closing date

Amount

(USD'000)

% of

implementation

period elapsed

Disburs.

%

Last

disbursement

date

TAG-1250-IEP 05 Dec 10 01 Apr 11 31 Oct 13 30 Apr 14 750 87% 71% 03-May-11

TAG-1256-AGEXPORT 15 Dec 10 11 Mar 11 31 Mar 14 30 Sep 14 2 000 75% 28% 06-Apr-12

TAG-1303-NAFIN 29 Aug 11 14 Jun 13 30 Mar 15 31 Dec 15 1 200 2%

TAG-1305-PROCASUR 29 Aug 11 11 Nov 11 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 2 000 40% 52% 31-May-13

TAG-1326-CLAEH 27 Nov 11 01 Mar 12 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15 1 800 43% 59% 14-Jan-13

TAG-1334-FUNARBE 05 Dec 11 15 Dec 11 31 Dec 14 30 Sep 15 500 51% 62% 30-Mar-12

TAG-1369-ACUA 05 May 12 25 Jul 12 31 Mar 15 30 Sep 15 1 750 35% 22% 21-Sep-12

TAG-1373-UNIANDES 05 May 12 22 May 12 30 Jun 15 31 Dec 15 1 750 36% 14% 23-Jul-12

TAG-1385-UNWOMEN 12 Aug 12 15 Apr 13 30 Jun 16 31 Dec 16 2 500 6% -

COFIN-SP-16-IICA 27 Apr 11 30 May 11 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 4 133 45% 29% 05-Aug-11

LC-1070-GT 17 Dec 08 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 30 Sep 18 450 23% 22% 15-Mar-12

LC-1158-PE 17 Dec 09 19 Aug 10 31 Dec 13 30 Jun 14 330 85% 52% 31-Aug-12

LC-1360-CO 03 Apr 12 17 Dec 12 31 Dec 15 30 Jun 16 617 18% -

LC-1361-MX 03 Apr 12 21 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 30 Jun 19 2 000 10% -

LC-784-SV 19 Apr 05 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 30 Jun 17 1 000 56% 75% 25-Apr-13

GEF-FSP-024-PA 13 Feb 12 28 Jun 13 30 Jun 17 31 Dec 17 1 500 0% -

GEF -FSP-23-VE 27 Sep 12 14 Jun 13 30 Jun 17 31 Dec 17 3 635 1% -

GEF-FSP-21-EC 04 May 11 16 Nov 11 31 Mar 17 30 Sep 172 700

30% 19% 16-May-12

GEF-FSP-22-PER 08 Jul 11 26 Sep 11 30 Sep 15 30 Jun 16 1 720 44% 67% 19-Jun-13

GEF-FSP-28-MX 18 Oct 11 27 Mar 12 31 Mar 16 30 Sep 165 000

31% -

GEF-FSP-2-BR 14 Dec 05 06 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 31 Mar 14 5 843 96% 100% 24-Apr-12



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

22

Table 23: Grant completed: 2012-2013 review period

Table 24: Grants closed or cancelled: 2012-2013 review period

Project Grant no. Approval dateEffectiveness

date

Current

completion

date

Closing dateActual

closing date

Amount

(USD'000)

Undisbursed

Balance

(USD'000)

Disburs. %

June 2013

Status

30/06/13

Strengthening of Farmer Organisations to Promote Policy Dialogue TAG-1109-COPROFAM 30 Apr 09 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 12 30 Jun 13 416 93 78% Completed

Learning Routes Programme II TAG-1178-PROCASUR 17 Dec 09 15 Apr 10 30 Jun 13 30 Dec 13 11 Jun 13 1 500 n.a. 100% Closed

Knowledge for Change: Policy processes for poverty impact TAG-1203-RIMISP 22 Apr 10 26 May 10 30 Jun 13 31 Dec 13 1 824 60 97% Completed

Enhancing the Gender-sensitive Impact of Remittances for Rural Dev. in LAC COFIN-SP-15-FUNDA-K 20 Aug 10 16 Dec 10 31 Dec 12 30 Jun 13 1 120 47 96% Completed

NI - Apoyo al IV Censo Agropecuario DSF-8075-NI 23 Dec 10 16 May 11 31 Dec 12 30 Jun 13 17 May 13 500 n.a. 100% Closed

GENTE DE VALOR (project BR 1335) LC-850-BR 20 Apr 06 01 Sep 08 30 Sep 12 31 Mar 13 27 Jun 13 500 n.a. 100% Closed

Total 6 grants 5 860 200 97%

Grant Grant no.Approval

date

Effectiveness

date

Completion

date

Planned

closing

date

Actual

closing date

Delay in

closing

(months)

Grant

amount

(USD'000)

Amount

cancelled

(USD'000)

IDRC - Scaling up Rural Innovations TAG-1036-IDRC 25 Apr 08 30 Dec 08 30 Jun 12 31 Dec 12 23 Jan 13 0.8 1 000 106

Learning Routes Programme II TAG-1178-PROCASUR 17 Dec 09 15 Apr 10 30 Jun 13 30 Dec 13 11 Jun 13 -6.6 1 500

Reunión Especializada sobre Agricultura Familiar, REAF TAG-1056-MERCOSUR 11 Sep 08 02 Feb 09 31 Mar 12 30 Sep 12 22 Mar 13 5.7 1 080 27

Policy Dialogue on Family Farming in MICs TAG-1187-UNOPS 21 Dec 09 24 Mar 10 31 Mar 11 30 Sep 11 22 Mar 13 17.7 200 25

CIAT - Reg. Prog. In Support of Rural Populations of African Descent in LAC TAG-1169A-CIAT 17 Dec 09 29 Jul 10 30 Jun 12 30 Sep 12 16 Jan 13 3.6 20

CIAT - Reg. Prog. In Support of Rural Populations of African Descent in LAC TAG-1169-CIAT 17 Dec 09 29 Jul 10 30 Jun 12 30 Sep 12 16 Jan 13 3.6 860

EC - Support to the Formulation of the Dev. Plan of the Cuenca del Baba TAG-1259-EC 17 Dec 10 13 Jan 11 31 Mar 12 31 Dec 12 26 Jun 13 5.8 200

Learning Adaptation and Mitigation from Highland Indigenous People TAG-1266-PRAIA 23 Dec 10 13 Jan 11 31 Mar 12 31 Dec 12 06 Mar 13 2.1 207 27

Lessons from MesoAm Indigenous Peoples on the Transition to a Green Economy TAG-1348-ACICAFOC 27 Dec 11 27 Dec 11 31 Mar 12 31 Dec 12 23 Jan 13 0.8 31

Haiti Post-Earthquake Support Programme COFIN-SEC-8058 22 Apr 10 23 Apr 10 31 Mar 12 30 Sep 12 04 Dec 12 2.1 2 000

Haiti Post-Earthquake Support Programme DSF-8058-IICA 22 Apr 10 23 Apr 10 31 Mar 12 30 Sep 12 04 Dec 12 2.1 500

NI - Apoyo al IV Censo Agropecuario DSF-8075-NI 23 Dec 10 16 May 11 31 Dec 12 30 Jun 13 17 May 13 -1.4 500

GENTE DE VALOR (project BR 1335) LC-850-BR 20 Apr 06 01 Sep 08 30 Sep 12 31 Mar 13 27 Jun 13 2.9 500

QUICHÉ (Project GT 1519) LC-1201-GT 15 Dec 10 17 Jun 13 Cancelled 500 500

Total 14 grants average 4.3 9 098 685

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

23

Table 25: Grants with overdue closing dates: June 2013

Grant no.Approval

date

Effectiveness

date

Completion

date

Closing

date

Time

overrun

(months)

Amount

(USD'000)

Undisbursed

balance

(USD'000)

Remarks

TAG-966-UY 18 Jul 07 19 Oct 07 31 Dec 09 31 Mar 10 39 200 100 Refund of unspent USD 100,000 expected in September 2013

TAG-1015-INCCA 31 Dec 07 01 Aug 08 30 Jun 10 31 Dec 10 30 200 20 Completion report cleared. Pending receipt of audit report

TAG-1129-DO 08 May 09 25 Jun 09 31 Dec 10 30 Sep 11 21 200 20 Audit contracting undergoing in June 2013

TAG-1186-EC 18 Dec 09 01 Feb 10 30 Jun 11 31 Mar 12 15 200 20 Completion report cleared. Pending receipt of audit report

TAG-537-CARUTA 26 Apr 01 23 Oct 07 31 Oct 11 30 Apr 12 14 753 205 Refund of unspent USD 5,841.57 expected in July 2013

TAG-1144-WINFA 14 Aug 09 15 Sep 09 30 Dec 11 30 Jun 12 12 194 39 Under forced closing procedures

TAG-1211-AGRISEM 23 Aug 10 31 Aug 10 31 Dec 11 30 Sep 12 9 300 30 Audit undertaken but pending receipt of SOE and audit letter

TAG-1206-FUNARBE 16 May 10 15 Jun 10 30 Jun 12 31 Mar 13 3 500 Closed on 18 July 2013

TAG-1109-COPROFAM 30 Apr 09 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 12 30 Jun 13 0 416 93 Audit undertaken but pending receipt of original documents

COFIN-SP-15-FUNDA-K 20 Aug 10 16 Dec 10 31 Dec 12 30 Jun 13 0 1 120 47 Audit report under CFS review for closing



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

24

Table 26: GSR ratings of grant projects: June 2013

SR: small regional; LR: large regional; SC: small country; LC: large country GEF and IFAD LCG are excluded

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

25

Table 27: PSR ratings of investment projects: June 2013

Imp.

prog.

Dev.

obj.

Phys. &

fin. assets

Food

sec.

Financ.

manag.

Disburs.

rate

Count.

funds

Loan

coven.Proc. Audits

Proj.

manag.M&E

AWPB &

implem.

Gender

focus

Pov.

focus

Target.

appr.

Innov. &

learningC.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5

Institut.

buildingEmp.

Benef.

partic.

Service

provid.

Exit

strat.

Scal. up &

replic.

Argentina 1279 31 Mar 14 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

Argentina 1364 31 Dec 15 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Argentina 1610 31 Dec 17 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Belize 1456 30 Sep 16 4 4 3 3 5 3 6 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Bolivia 1298 31 Dec 15 4 4 4 4 5 6 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4

Bolivia 1490 30 Sep 15 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4

Brazil 1335 31 Dec 12 5 5 4 5 5 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 6 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Brazil 1487 31 Dec 18 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3

Colombia 1294 31 Dec 13 5 5 5 4 6 4 6 5 5 5 6 4 5 4 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

Colombia 1491 31 Dec 17 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Dominican Rep. 1479 30 Jun 16 3 4 2 2 5 2 2 4 5 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3

Dominican Rep. 1533 30 Sep 18 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4

Ecuador 1297 30 Jun 14 4 4 4 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4

Ecuador 1354 30 Mar 17 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Ecuador 1588 30 Jun 18 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

El Salvador 1321 31 Dec 16 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5

El Salvador 1416 31 Dec 15 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3

El Salvador 1568 30 Jun 17 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4

Grenada 1569 31 Mar 17 3 3 2 2 5 5 3 4 5 5 3 4 2 5 4 5 4 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 4

Guatemala 1274 31 Dec 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2

Guatemala 1317 31 Dec 14 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 4 5 4 2 4 6 6 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3

Guatemala 1473 31 Mar 18 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3

Guyana 1415 31 Mar 15 4 4 4 3 5 5 6 4 4 5 4 3 3 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4

Haiti 1171 31 Dec 14 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5

Haiti 1275 31 Dec 15 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4

Haiti 1532 31 Dec 17 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4

Honduras 1407 31 Dec 15 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 6 5 6 3 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 3 3 4

Honduras 1535 31 Mar 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 4

Honduras 1595 31 Mar 18 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 3

Mexico 1349 31 Dec 13 4 4 5 4 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5

Mexico 1412 31 Mar 16 4 4 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4

Mexico 1597 31 Dec 18 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Nicaragua 1120 30 Jun 13 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4

Nicaragua 1380 30 Sep 15 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 5

Nicaragua 1505 31 Mar 17 4 4 4 5 4 6 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5

Panama 1389 31 Mar 16 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 2 2

Paraguay 1333 30 Sep 13 5 6 5 5 4 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 6 5 6 6 5 4 5

Peru 1240 31 Dec 13 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 6 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 6

Peru 1352 30 Sep 14 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5

Venezuela 1252 30 Sep 13 4 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 5

Venezuela 1404 31 Dec 17 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3

Regional average 3.83 4.05 3.91 3.91 4.08 3.88 4.07 4.05 4.15 4.17 4.12 3.73 3.69 4.05 4.63 4.59 4.12 4.03 4.18 4.20 3.83 3.79 4.133.92

Country Project ID

Current

completion

date

Overall assessment and risk

profileFiduciary aspects Project implementation progress

Outputs and outcomes

(component ratings)Sustainability



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

26

Table 28: Disbursement performance of investment projects - IFAD financing: June 2013

Country Project

ID Project

Loan / DSF grant no.

Effectiveness date

Current completion

date

Amount (SDR m)

Cum. disb. (SDR m) 30/06/13

Expected disb. (SDR m)

Disbursed%

Expected disb. %

Disb. lag

ARGENTINA

31.40 17.91 13.45 57% 43% -33%

1279 PRODERPA 648 10 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 13.35 8.40 8.39 63% 63%

1364 PRODEAR 713 16 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 13.10 7.20 4.53 55% 35% -59%

1610 PRODERI 848 07 Dec 11 31 Dec 17 4.95 2.31 0.53 47% 11% -334%

BELIZE

2.05 0.63 0.77 31% 38% 18%

1456 RFP 769 01 Sep 09 30 Sep 16 2.05 0.63 0.77 31% 38% 19%

BOLIVIA

19.10 12.84 11.01 67% 58% -17%

1145 PROMARENA 540 22 Aug 03 30 Sep 10 9.25 7.98 8.70 86% 94% 8%

1298 VALE 714 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 4.80 4.14 1.66 86% 35% -149%

1490 PLAN VIDA 800 10 Aug 11 30 Sep 15 5.05 0.72 0.65 14% 13% -11%

BRAZIL

36.86 19.65 15.88 53% 43% -24%

1335 GENTE DE VALOR 696 11 Dec 06 31 Dec 12 20.80 19.00 15.16 91% 73% -25%

1487 PROCASE (Paraíba) 798 17 Oct 12 31 Dec 18 16.06 0.65 0.72 4% 4% 9%

COLOMBIA

13.40 11.85 8.90 88% 66% -33%

1294 OPORTUNIDADES 702 28 Jun 07 30 Jun 13 13.40 11.85 8.90 88% 66% -33%

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

18.70 1.21 3.17 6% 17% 62%

1479 PRORURAL OESTE 780 26 May 10 30 Jun 16 9.45 1.18 2.63 12% 28% 55%

1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE 811 04 Sep 12 30 Sep 18 9.25 0.03 0.54

6% 94%

ECUADOR

28.85 9.53 8.46 33% 29% -13%

1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL 650 25 Sep 07 30 Sep 13 9.90 7.76 6.22 78% 63% -25%

1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO 789 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 5.55 0.53 0.98 9% 18% 46%

1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO 804 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 2.65 0.25 0.47 9% 18% 46%

1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO

30 Mar 17 8.20 0.78 1.45 9% 18% 46%

1588 BUEN VIVIR 849 30 May 12 30 Jun 18 10.75 0.99 0.79 9% 7% -25%

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

27

Country Project

ID Project


Effectiveness date

Current completion

date

Amount (SDR m)



Disbursed%

Expected disb. %

Disb. lag

EL SALVADOR

30.60 11.17 8.86 37% 29% -26%

1321 PRODEMORO 666 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 9.95 6.14 4.75 62% 48% -29%

1416 PRODEMOR-CENTRAL 728 18 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 9.50 4.93 3.29 52% 35% -50%

1568 AMANECER RURAL 828 01 Jun 12 30 Jun 17 11.15 0.10 0.82 1% 7% 88%

GRENADA

1.93 0.50 0.34 26% 18% -47%

1569 MAREP 819 30 Mar 11 31 Mar 17 1.93 0.50 0.34 26% 18% -45%

GUATEMALA

45.00 9.92 22.20 22% 49% 55%

1274 OCCIDENTE 614 20 Oct 06 31 Dec 12 21.55 5.52 15.70 26% 73% 65%

1317 ORIENTE 651 01 Dec 08 31 Dec 14 11.35 3.49 5.42 31% 48% 36%

1473 PRODERNORTE 770 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 12.10 0.91 1.08 8% 9% 15%

GUYANA

3.70 2.12 1.64 57% 44% -29%

1415 READ 742 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 1.85 1.06 0.82 57% 44% -28%

1415 READ 8015 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 1.85 1.06 0.82 57% 44% -28%

1415 READ

31 Mar 15 3.70 2.12 1.64 57% 44% -28%

HAITI

43.45 26.08 22.59 60% 52% -15%

1171 PAIP 587 20 Dec 02 31 Dec 14 17.40 17.40 16.48 100% 95% -6%

1171 PAIP 8096 01 Jan 12 31 Dec 14 4.85 2.71 0.43 56% 9% -530%

1171 PAIP

31 Dec 14 22.25 20.11 16.91 90% 76% -19%

1275 PPI 2 715 05 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 8.80 3.39 4.20 39% 48% 19%

1275 PPI 2 8041 28 Jan 10 31 Dec 15 3.65 2.58 1.13 71% 31% -128%

1275 PPI 2

31 Dec 15 12.45 5.97 5.33 48% 43% -12%

1532 PPI 3 8103 24 Oct 12 31 Dec 17 8.75

0.35

4% 100%



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

28

Country Project

ID Project


Effectiveness date

Current completion

date

Amount (SDR m)



Disbursed%

Expected disb. %

Disb. lag

HONDURAS

18.13 4.00 4.53 22% 25% 12%

1407 PROMECOM 759 17 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 5.98 2.43 2.86 41% 48% 15%

1535 EMPRENDE SUR 816 01 Feb 11 31 Mar 17 6.65 1.03 1.18 15% 18% 13%

1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE 839 21 Feb 12 31 Mar 18 5.50 0.54 0.49 10% 9% -9%

MEXICO

32.50 13.40 14.01 41% 43% 4%

1349 PRODESNOS 674 01 Sep 06 30 Sep 12 17.25 12.32 12.96 71% 75% 5%

1412 DECOFOS 790 23 Mar 11 31 Mar 16 3.20 1.08 0.57 34% 18% -90%

1597 LAS MIXTECAS 872 29 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 12.05

0.48

4% 100%

NICARAGUA

28.48 15.24 13.41 54% 47% -14%

1120 FAT 529 20 Jun 01 30 Jun 13 10.15 9.88 9.66 97% 95% -2%

1380 PROVACAL 760 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 2.94 1.81 1.48 62% 50% -22%

1380 PROVACAL 8009A 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 2.94 1.81 1.48 62% 50% -22%

1380 PROVACAL 863 18 Dec 12 30 Sep 15 3.85 0.45 0.17 12% 4% -165%

1380 PROVACAL 8097 18 Dec 12 30 Sep 15 3.50 0.45 0.16 13% 4% -181%

1380 PROVACAL

30 Sep 15 13.23 4.52 3.29 34% 25% -37%

1505 NICARIBE 830 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 2.55 0.42 0.23 16% 9% -83%

1505 NICARIBE 8071 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 2.55 0.42 0.23 16% 9% -83%

1505 NICARIBE

31 Mar 17 5.10 0.84 0.46 16% 9% -83%

PANAMA

14.44 8.80 11.92 61% 83% 26%

1199 NGOBE-BUGLE II 580 16 Sep 03 30 Sep 11 11.84 8.20 11.11 69% 94% 26%

1389 PARTICIPA 750 31 Mar 10 31 Mar 16 2.60 0.60 0.81 23% 31% 25%

PARAGUAY

9.85 7.67 4.07 78% 41% -88%

1333 PARAGUAY RURAL 667 30 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 7.85 7.84 4.93 100% 63% -59%

1333 PARAGUAY RURAL 792 15 Dec 11 30 Sep 13 2.00 1.69 0.22 84% 11% -668%

1333 PARAGUAY RURAL

30 Sep 13 9.85 9.53 5.15 97% 52% -85%

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

29

Country Project

ID Project


Effectiveness date

Current completion

date

Amount (SDR m)



Disbursed%

Expected disb. %

Disb. lag

PERU

26.35 21.81 14.35 83% 54% -52%

1240 SIERRA SUR 602 22 Apr 05 30 Jun 11 12.10 11.78 10.03 97% 85% -17%

1240 SIERRA SUR II 799 06 Sep 10 31 Dec 13 5.20 3.82 0.92 74% 24% -315%

1240 SIERRA SUR

31 Dec 13 17.30 15.60 10.95 90% 63% -42%

1352 SIERRA NORTE 744 23 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 9.05 6.21 3.40 69% 38% -82%

VENEZUELA

19.20 10.53 9.66 55% 50% -9%

1252 PROSALAFA II 627 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 12 10.40 10.04 7.81 97% 75% -28%

1404 WARAO 771 19 Oct 10 31 Dec 17 8.80 0.49 1.85 6% 21% 73%

Total 52 loans / DSF grants 423.99 204.87 189.22 48% 45% -8%

Expected disbursement is calculated from the IFAD model, as at 30/6/2013

Percentage disbursement is calculated against the loan amount net of cancellations

Projects with closed loans have been excluded

LCG are excluded



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

30

Table 29: Loans and DSF grants with disbursement lag of 40% or more: June 2013

Expected disbursement is calculated from the IFAD model, as at 30/6/2013. Percentage disbursement is calculated against the loan amount net of cancellations. Projects with closed loans have been excluded. Only loans/DSF grants that have been effective for one year or more at 30/6/2013 are included. Loans/DSF grants with zero disbursement are excluded

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

31

Table 30: Withdrawal application processing by country: 2009-2013



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

32

Table 31: Project SOE thresholds: June 2013

Note: The predominant ceiling has been selected for projects with different ceilings across categories

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

33

Table 32: Status of receipt of audit reports due for FY ended in 2008-2012

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Argentina 1098 PRODERNOA June Nov-09 Jul-10 Jul-11 Jul-12 Apr-13

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA June Nov-09 Oct-10 Oct-11 Jul-12 Jul-13

Argentina 1364 PRODEAR June Sep-11 Jul-12 Jul-13

Belize 1456 RFP Sept. Oct-10 Sep-11 Oct-12 Audit report due in September 2013

Bolivia 1298 VALE June Jul-11 Jun-12 Jun-13

Brazil 1101 DOM HELDER CAMARA June Jun-09 Jun-10 Apr-11 Apr-12 Jul-13

Brazil 1335 GENTE DE VALOR June Jul-09 Jun-10 Jul-11 May-12 Jul-13

Colombia 1294 OPORTUNIDADES June Jul-09 Jun-10 May-11 Jun-12 Incomplete audit report received in August

Dominican Republic 1479 PRORURAL OESTE June Audit report expected in August 2013

Ecuador 1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL June Jun-09 Nov-10 Jun-11 Oct-12 Jul-13

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO June Audit report expected in September 2013

El Salvador 1215 PREMODER June Jul-09 Aug-10 Jul-11 Jun-12 Nov-12

El Salvador 1321 PRODEMORO June Jun-10 Jun-11 Jun-12 May-13

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR-CENTRAL June Jun-12 Jun-13

Grenada 1569 MAREP June Jun-12 Jul-13

Guatemala 1274 OCCIDENTE June Nov-09 Aug-10 Jul-11 Oct-12 Audit report expected in August 2013

Guatemala 1317 ORIENTE June Nov-10 Jul-11 Jul-12 Audit report expected in December 2013

Guatemala 1473 PRODENORTE June Audit report expected in December 2013

Guyana 1415 READ June Jul-10 Jul-11 Jun-12 Jul-13

Haiti 1171 PAIP March Apr-09 Jun-10 Jun-12 May-13

Haiti 1275 PPI 2 March Apr-10 Mar-11 Sep-12Audit report more than 90 days overdue; expected in

August 2013

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM June Nov-10 Jun-12 Jun-13

Honduras 1535 EMPRENDE SUR June Jun-12 Jun-13

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS June Jun-09 Jun-10 Jun-11 Jul-12 Audit report expected in August 2013

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS June Audit report expected in August 2013

Nicaragua 1120 FAT June Jan-10 Dec-10 Nov-11 Jul-12 Jul-13

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL June Mar-11 Mar-11 Sep-11 Nov-12 Audit report expected in August 2013

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBE June Jun-13

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA June Apr-12 Jul-13

Paraguay 1333 PARAGUAY RURAL June Nov-09 Jun-10 Jul-11 Dec-12 Jul-13

Peru 1240 SIERRA SUR June Oct-09 Sep-10 May-11 Mar-12 Apr-13

Peru 1352 SIERRA NORTE June Nov-12 Jul-13

Venezuela 1252 PROSALAFA II June Oct-09 Sep-10 Oct-11 Nov-12 Jul-13

Venezuela 1404 WARAO June

2011 FY auditor's selection more than 180 days overdue

and 2012 FY auditor selection yet to start; project has

been suspended in February 2013

Country Project ID Project Due

date

Date of receipt

Remarks



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

34

Table 33: Status of 2012 project RIMS reporting delivery: June 2013

Required Delivered Required Delivered

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA 02 Dec 04 10 Sep 07 31 Mar 14 Ɍ √ R √

Argentina 1364 PRODEAR 14 Dec 06 16 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 Ɍ √ R √

Argentina 1610 PRODERI 15 Sep 11 07 Dec 11 31 Dec 17 Ɍ

Belize 1456 RFP 17 Dec 08 01 Sep 09 30 Sep 16 Ɍ √

Bolivia 1298 VALE 14 Dec 06 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 Ɍ √ R √

Bolivia 1490 PLAN VIDA 17 Dec 09 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 Ɍ

Brazil 1335 GENTE DE VALOR 20 Apr 06 11 Dec 06 31 Dec 12 Ɍ √ R √

Colombia 1294 OPORTUNIDADES 14 Sep 06 28 Jun 07 31 Dec 13 Ɍ √ R √

Dominican Rep. 1479 PRORURAL OESTE 30 Apr 09 26 May 10 30 Jun 16 Ɍ √

Ecuador 1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL 02 Dec 04 25 Sep 07 30 Jun 14 Ɍ √ R √

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO 15 Sep 09 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 Ɍ

El Salvador 1321 PRODEMORO 19 Apr 05 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 Ɍ √ R √

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR-CENTRAL 12 Sep 07 18 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 Ɍ √ R √

Grenada 1569 MAREP 05 Dec 10 30 Mar 11 31 Mar 17 Ɍ √

Guatemala 1274 OCCIDENTE 11 Sep 03 20 Oct 06 31 Dec 12 Ɍ R √

Guatemala 1317 ORIENTE 02 Dec 04 01 Dec 08 31 Dec 14 Ɍ √ R √

Guyana 1415 READ 13 Dec 07 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 Ɍ √ R √

Haiti 1171 PAIP 23 Apr 02 20 Dec 02 31 Dec 14 Ɍ √ R √

Haiti 1275 PPI 2 14 Dec 06 05 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 Ɍ √ R √

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM 13 Dec 07 17 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 Ɍ √ R

Honduras 1535 EMPRENDE SUR 16 Sep 10 01 Feb 11 31 Mar 17 Ɍ √

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS 08 Sep 05 01 Sep 06 31 Dec 13 Ɍ √ R √

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS 15 Sep 09 23 Mar 11 31 Mar 16 Ɍ √

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL 12 Sep 07 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 Ɍ √ R √

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBE 15 Dec 10 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 Ɍ √

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA 24 Apr 08 31 Mar 10 31 Mar 16 Ɍ √

Paraguay 1333 PARAGUAY RURAL 19 Apr 05 30 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 Ɍ √ R √

Peru 1240 SIERRA SUR 11 Dec 02 22 Apr 05 31 Dec 13 Ɍ √ R √

Peru 1352 SIERRA NORTE 13 Dec 07 23 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 Ɍ √ R √

Venezuela 1252 PROSALAFA II 18 Dec 03 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 13 Ɍ √ R √

Total 30 30 26 20 19

Country Project ID Project Approval date Effectiveness dateCurrent

completion date

1st level 2nd level

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

35

Table 34: Status of 2012 project RIMS reporting delivery: June 2013

Y/N = Yes/ No na = not applicable (was not surveyed or not surveyed yet) W= Waiting Suitability to Eval: 0 = No ; 0.5 = Maybe; 1 = Yes DHS: 1 = useful LSMS: 1 = useful Projects included as per list provided by PMD Front Office; prrojects not listed were not reviewed

Baseline Midterm Completion DHS LSMS Census YRIncome/

Expenditure

Country programmes with no data available

Argentina PRODERPA 1279 N N N N N N 0 0 2010 annual

Argentina PRODEAR 1364 N N N N N N 0 0 2010 annual

Argentina PRODERI 1610 W W N N N N 0 0 2010 annual

Brazil PROCASE (Paraíba) 1487 N N N N N N 0 0 2010 annual

Colombia OPORTUNIDADES 1294 N N N N Y N 1 1 2005 annual

Ecuador CORREDOR CENTRAL 1297 N N N N N N 0 1 2010 2006

Ecuador IBARRA-SAN LORENZO 1354 N N N N N N 0 1 2010 2006

Ecuador BUEN VIVIR 1588 N N N N N N 0 0 2010 2006

Grenada MAREP 1569 N N N N N N 0 0 2011 na

Guyana READ 1415 N N N N N N 1 0 2012 na

Paraguay PPI 2 1611 N N N N N N 0 0 2012 2002

Paraguay PARAGUAY RURAL 1333 N N N N N N 0 0 2012 annual

Venezuela PROSALAFA II 1252 W N W N N N 0 0 2011 2008 2011

Venezuela WARAO 1404 N W N N N N 0 0 0 0

Country programmes with at least one dataset available

Belize RFP 1456 Y Y na na Y Y 0 0 2010 2009

Bolivia PROMARENA 1145 Y W na Y N Y 1 0 2012 annual

El Salvador PRODEMOR-Central 1416 Y Y N N N Y 0 0 2007 annual

El Salvador PRODEMORO 1321 Y Y na na N Y 0 0 2007 annual

Guatemala PRODEVER 1085 W W na na N N 0 1 2002 2006 2011

Guatemala OCCIDENTE 1274 Y na Y na N Y 0 0 2002 2006 2011

Haiti PICV II 1070 Y W na na N Y 0 0 na 2012

Haiti PAIP 1171 Y W na W N Y 0 0 na 2012

Haiti PPI 2 1275 Y Y na na N N 1 0 2003 2012

Honduras PRONADEL 1198 N N N N N N 0 0 na na

Honduras HORIZONTES DEL NORTE 1595 N N N N N N 0 0 2013 annual

Honduras PROMECOM 1407 Y W Y na N Y 1 0 2013 annual

Honduras EMPRENDE SUR 1535 Y Y na na N Y 1 0 2013 annual

Mexico PRODESNOS 1349 Y W Y na N Y 0 0 2010 annual

Mexico DECOFOS 1412 Y Y na na N Y 0 0 2010 annual

Nicaragua PROCAVAL 1380 Y W Y na Y Y 0 0 2005 2009

Nicaragua PRODESEC 1256 Y Y na Y N Y 0 1 2005 2006 2009

Nicaragua NICARIBE 1505 Y Y na na Y Y 0 0 2005 2005 2009

Nicaragua FAT 1120 W W na W Y Y 0 0 2005 2007 2009

Panama NGOBE-BUGLE 1199 N N N N N N 0 0 2010 na

Panama PARTICIPA 1389 Y W Y na N Y 0 0 2010 2008

Peru SIERRA SUR 1240 N Y na na Y N 1 0 2007 annual

Country Project Project ID RIMS Availability

RIMS Survey TypeNon

RIMS

Data

Data Usefulness

Secondary Data Sources



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

36

Table 35: PSR aggregate ratings of investment portfolio: June 2013

B.1 Fiduciary aspects

B.2 Project implementation progress

average rating 4.1 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.2

score 1 1 3% 2 5% 1 2% 1 2%

score 2 2 6% 3 7% 2 5% 2 5%

score 3 6 17% 14 34% 11 27% 6 15% 5 12% 2 5%

score 4 13 36% 13 32% 16 39% 20 49% 23 56% 21 51%

score 5 12 33% 7 17% 6 15% 12 29% 10 24% 14 34%

score 6 2 6% 4 10% 6 15% 1 2% 2 5% 1 2%

No. of projects rated 36 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100% 41 100%

Rated 3 or less 9 25% 17 41% 13 32% 8 20% 6 15% 5 12%

Rated 4 or more 27 75% 24 59% 28 68% 33 80% 35 85% 36 88%

Compliance with

procurement

Quality and timeliness

of audits

Quality of financial

management

Acceptable

disbursement rateCounterpart funds

Compliance with

financing covenants

average rating 4.12 3.73 3.69 4.05 4.63 4.59 4.12

score 1

score 2 1 2% 1 2% 6 17% 2 5%

score 3 8 20% 13 32% 8 23% 5 12% 1 2% 3 9% 7 21%

score 4 19 46% 23 56% 12 34% 23 56% 17 41% 10 29% 17 52%

score 5 11 27% 4 10% 9 26% 11 27% 19 46% 19 56% 7 21%

score 6 2 5% 4 10% 2 6% 2 6%

No. of projects rated 41 100% 41 100% 35 100% 41 100% 41 100% 34 100% 33 100%

Rated 3 or less 9 22% 14 34% 14 40% 7 17% 1 2% 3 9% 7 21%

Rated 4 or more 32 78% 27 66% 21 60% 34 83% 40 98% 31 91% 26 79%

Innovation and learningQuality of project

managementPerformance of M&E

Coherence AWPB &

implementationGender focus Poverty focus

Effectiveness of

targeting approach

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

37

B.4 Sustainability

C. Overall assessment

average rating 4.03 4.18 4.20 3.83 3.79 4.13

score 1 1 3%

score 2 1 3% 3 11% 2 7%

score 3 4 12% 6 18% 7 17% 12 29% 6 21% 4 13%

score 4 20 61% 14 42% 21 51% 24 59% 13 46% 13 43%

score 5 8 24% 10 30% 11 27% 5 12% 6 21% 10 33%

score 6 2 6% 2 5% 1 3%

No. of projects rated 33 100% 33 100% 41 100% 41 100% 28 100% 30 100%

Rated 3 or less 5 15% 7 21% 7 17% 12 29% 9 32% 6 20%

Rated 4 or more 28 85% 26 79% 34 83% 29 71% 19 68% 24 80%

Institution building

(organizations, etc.)Empowerment

Quality of beneficiary

participation

Responsiveness of

service providers

Exit strategy (readiness

and quality)

Potential for scaling up

and replication

average rating 3.91 3.91 3.83 4.05 4.05

score 1 1 2%

score 2 4 12% 4 12% 3 7% 1 2%

score 3 3 9% 6 18% 6 15% 3 7%

score 4 19 58% 12 36% 27 66% 27 66%

score 5 6 18% 11 33% 5 12% 8 20%

score 6 1 3% 1 2%

No. of projects rated 33 100% 33 100% 41 100% 41 100%

Rated 3 or less 7 21% 10 30% 9 22% 5 12%

Rated 4 or more 26 79% 23 70% 32 78% 36 88%

Physical/financial

assetsFood security

Overall implementation

progress

Likelihood of achieving

the development

objectives



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

38

Table 36: Results Management Framework country ratings: 2012 - 2013

2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013

Argentina 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5

Belize 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Bolivia 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5

Brazil 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4

Colombia 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

Dominican Republic 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 4

Ecuador 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

El Salvador 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Grenada 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

Guatemala 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5

Guyana 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 4

Haiti 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 5

Honduras 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5

Mexico 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

Nicaragua 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4

Panama 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5

Paraguay 5 5 5 5 6 6 4 4

Peru 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5

Venezuela 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4

average rating 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.00 4.42 4.32 4.42 4.42

Increased incomes Improved food security Empowerment Aid effectiveness agenda

Country

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

39

No. of projects % No. of projects % No. of projects % No. of projects %

average rating 4.05 4.00 4.32 4.42

rated 1

rated 2 2 11% 2 11% 1 5%

rated 3 2 11% 2 11% 2 11% 1 5%

rated 4 8 42% 9 47% 7 37% 9 47%

rated 5 7 37% 6 32% 8 42% 9 47%

rated 6 1 5%

No. of country programmes rated19 100% 19 100% 19 100% 19 100%

Rated 3 or less 4 21% 4 21% 3 16% 1 5%

Rated 4 or more 15 79% 15 79% 16 84% 18 95%

Aid effectiveness agendaAggregate ratings (2013-

2013)

Increased incomes Improved food security Empowerment



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

40

Table 37: Project output ratings by impact domain: 2012 – 2013

rating 1 1 4% 1 3%

rating 2 2 10% 2 7% 2 6% 2 6% 1 10% 1 11%

rating 3 3 14% 6 32% 9 32% 8 24% 1 13% 1 14% 4 13% 5 17% 2 20% 1 11%

rating 4 9 43% 8 42% 10 36% 13 39% 4 50% 4 57% 14 45% 18 60% 4 40% 4 44%

rating 5 7 33% 5 26% 6 21% 9 27% 3 38% 1 14% 9 29% 6 20% 2 20% 2 22%

rating 6 1 3% 1 14% 1 3% 1 3% 1 10% 1 11%

No. of components scored 21 100% 19 100% 28 100% 33 100% 8 100% 7 100% 31 100% 30 100% 10 100% 9 100%

Rating 3 or less 5 24% 6 32% 12 43% 10 30% 1 13% 1 14% 7 23% 5 17% 3 30% 2 22%

Rating 4 or more 16 76% 13 68% 16 57% 23 70% 7 88% 6 86% 24 77% 25 83% 7 70% 7 78%

average rating 4.00 3.95 3.64 3.97 4.25 4.29 4.00 4.10 4.00 4.11

No. of projects scored 21 19 19 20 8 7 25 24 10 9

No. of components scored 21 19 28 33 8 7 31 30 10 9

HT 1171

PY 1333

PE 1240 VE 1252 HN 1407

PE 1352 HN 1535

HN 1407 NI 1380 ES 1321

HN 1535 PY 1333 ES 1416

EC 1297 CO 1294 PE 1240 CO 1294 NI 1380

ES 1321 NI 1120 PE 1352 EC 1297 PE 1240

2013 2012 2013 2012

No. of projects with components rated 5

or more in 2013BR 1335 AR 1279 ES 1321 BR 1335 CO 1294

2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012

MarketsIncome / assets / food

security / agric. productivityNRM and the environment

Human and social capital

empowermentInstitutions and policies



41

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Table 38: Direct supervision and implementation support missions: 2012 – 2013

CountryProject

IdProject Name

Loan

Effectiveness

Project

CompletionJul. A ug. Sep. Oct . N o v. D ec. Jan. F eb. M ar. A pril M ay June

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA 10 Sep 07 31 Mar 14 D S D S

Argentina 1364 PRODEAR 16 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 D S D S

Argentina 1610 PRODERI 07 Dec 11 31 Dec 17 D S D S

Belize 1456 RFP 01 Sep 09 30 Sep 16 M T R D S

Bolivia 1298 VALE 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 M T R IS IS IS

Bolivia 1490 PLAN VIDA 10 Aug 11 30 Sep 15 IS IS IS

Bolivia 1598 ACCESOS not eff

Brazil 1101 SERTÃO 16 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 D S

Brazil 1335 GENTE DE VALOR 11 Dec 06 31 Dec 12 D S IS

Brazil 1486 VIVA O SEMI ÁRIDO (Piauí) 09 Apr 13 30 Jun 20 IS IS

Brazil 1487 PROCASE (Paraiba) 17 Oct 12 31 Dec 18 IS IS IS

Brazil 1563 DOM TÁVORA (Sergipe) not eff IS

Brazil 1619 PAULO FREIRE (Ceará) 27 Jun 13 30 Jun 19

Colombia 1294 OPORTUNIDADES 28 Jun 07 31 Dec 13 IS D S

Colombia 1491 TOP 13 Dec 12 31 Dec 17 IS IS

Dominican Rep. 1479 PRORURAL OESTE 26 May 10 30 Jun 16 IS D S IS IS

Dominican Rep. 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE 04 Sep 12 30 Sep 18 IS IS IS IS

Ecuador 1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL 25 Sep 07 30 Jun 14 IS D S IS IS IS

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA- SAN LORENZO 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 IS IS IS IS

Ecuador 1588 BUEN VIVIR 30 May 12 30 Jun 18 IS IS IS IS

El Salvador 1321 PRODEMORO 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 D S D S

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR- CENTRAL 18 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 D S D S

El Salvador 1568 AMANECER RURAL 01 Jun 12 31 Dec 17

Grenada 1569 MAREP 30 Mar 11 31 Mar 17 D S D S

Guatemala 1274 OCCIDENTE 20 Oct 06 31 Dec 12

Guatemala 1317 ORIENTE 01 Dec 08 31 Dec 14 D S

Guatemala 1473 PRODENORTE 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 D S

Guyana 1415 READ 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 IS IS D S

Haiti 1171 PAIP 20 Dec 02 31 Dec 14 D S IS

Haiti 1275 PPI 2 05 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 D S D S

Haiti 1532 PPI 3 24 Oct 12 31 Dec 17

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM 17 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 IS D S M T R

Honduras 1535 EMPRENDE SUR 01 Feb 11 31 Mar 17 IS D S IS D S

Honduras 1595 HORIZONTES DEL NORTE 21 Feb 12 31 Mar 18 IS IS IS

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS 01 Sep 06 30 Sep 13 D S D S

Mexico 1412 DECOFOS 23 Mar 11 31 Mar 16 D S D S

Mexico 1597 MIXTECA 29 Nov 12 31 Dec 18

Nicaragua 1120 FAT 20 Jun 01 30 Jun 13 IS D S D S

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 IS D S D S

Nicaragua 1505 NICARIBE 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 IS D S D S

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA 31 Mar 10 31 Mar 16 D S D S

Paraguay 1333 PARAGUAY RURAL 30 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 D S D S

Paraguay 1611 PARAGUAY INCLUSIVO 26 Feb 13 31 Mar 18 D S

Peru 1240 SIERRA SUR 22 Apr 05 31 Dec 13 IS D S IS

Peru 1352 SIERRA NORTE 23 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 M T R IS

Peru 1498 SIERRA Y SELVA AVLTA 20 Feb 13 31 Mar 18

Venezuela 1252 PROSALAFA II 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 12 D S IS IS

Venezuela 1404 WARAO 19 Oct 10 31 Dec 17 IS IS IS IS

Venezuela 1609 PROSANESU not eff IS IS

D S - Direct supervision mission

IS - Implementat ion support mission (incl. start-up and complet ion missions)

M TR - M id-term review

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 39: Risk matrix: June 2013

Fiduciary aspects Project implementation progress Outputs and outcomes Sustainability

Lacking organizational / managerial / human capacity of

PMU/LPA

AR 1279, AR 1364, BR 1487, EC 1297, GD 1569,

GT 1274, GT 1317, HT 1171, HT 1275, HN 1407,

ME 1412, NI 1120, NI 1380, PA 1389, PE 1352

AR 1364, AR 1610, BZ 1456, ES 1416, ES 1568,

GD 1569, GY 1415, HT 1275, HN 1407, ME 1349,

ME 1412, NI 1120, NI 1505, PY 1333, PE 1352, VE

1404

AR 1610, DO 1479, ES 1416, GD 1569, NI 1120, PA

1389, PE 1352EC 1297, HT 1275, HN 1407, PA 1389

Lacking organizational/human capability of beneficiary

organizationsAR 1279, ES 1321 VE 1404 PY 1333, VE 1404 GT 1274, VE 1404

Insufficient / untimely release of counterpart / co-financing

funds / fiscal spaceBO 1298, GD 1569, HT 1171, HN 1535, PE 1352

BO 1298, DO 1479, EC 1588, GD 1569, GT 1274,

GT 1317, HN 1407, HN 1535, HN 1595, HT 1171,

HT 1275, HT 1532, ME 1597, NI 1505, PA 1389, PY

1333

GT 1317, HT 1275, PY 1333

Lacking/weak implementation strategy (including exit

strategy)

BO 1298, BO 1490, DO 1479, DO 1533,EC 1588,

ES 1321, ES 1416, ES 1568, GD 1569, GT 1274,

GT 1317, HN 1407, HN 1535, HT1275, NI 1505, PA

1389, VE 1404

AR 1279, AR 1610, BO 1298, BO 1490, BR 1335,

CO 1294, DO 1479, EC 1297, ES 1321, GT 1274,

GT 1317, HT 1171, HT 1275, HN 1407, PA 1389,

PE 1352

AR 1364, BZ 1456, BO 1298, BR 1335, EC 1297,

ES 1321, GT 1317, GY 1415, HT 1171, HN 1407,

ME 1412, NI 1120, PA 1389, PY 1333

Cumbersome / lengthy administrative processes DO 1479, HT 1275 ES 1568, GT 1274

Weak Planning and/or M&E capability

BO 1298, BO 1490, BR 1487, CO 1294, DO 1479,

DO 1533, EC 1354, EC 1588, GD 1569, GT 1274,

GY 1415, HN 1407, HT 1275, HT 1532, ME 1349,

ME 1412, NI 1380, PY 1333, VE 1404

CO 1294, HT 1171, ME 1349, ME 1412, VE 1252

Lacking procurement capacity AR 1279, BZ 1456, BO 1298, PA 1389ES 1416, ES 1568, GT 1274, GT 1317, GY 1415, PA

1389, VE 1404

43



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 40: Summary indicators of investment projects: June 2013

Country Project ID Eff. date

Current

completion

date

No. of

supervision

missions

Last supervision

dateMTR date

Pre / post

MTR

No. of

extensions

Implem.

progress

rating

Likelihood of

achieving

D.O. rating

No. of PBAS risk

flags rated 3 or

less

PAR value

Argentina 1279 10 Sep 07 31 Mar 14 10 31 May 13 13 Mar 09 Post MTR 1 4 5 1 Not at Risk

Argentina 1364 16 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 7 31 May 13 Pre MTR 4 4 Not at Risk

Argentina 1610 07 Dec 11 31 Dec 17 2 31 May 13 Pre MTR 4 4 1 Not at Risk

Belize 1456 01 Sep 09 30 Sep 16 6 22 Jun 13 03 Oct 12 Post MTR 4 4 1 Not at Risk

Bolivia 1298 05 Nov 09 31 Dec 15 6 08 Jun 13 07 Nov 12 Post MTR 4 4 Not at Risk

Bolivia 1490 10 Aug 11 30 Sep 15 1 12 Apr 13 Pre MTR 4 4 3 Not at Risk

Brazil 1335 11 Dec 06 31 Dec 12 8 30 Nov 12 31 Jan 11 Post MTR 5 5 Not at Risk

Brazil 1487 17 Oct 12 31 Dec 18 Pre MTR 4 4 3 Not at Risk

Colombia 1294 28 Jun 07 31 Dec 13 6 15 Dec 12 11 Oct 10 Post MTR 1 5 5 Not at Risk

Colombia 1491 13 Dec 12 31 Dec 17 Pre MTR 4 4 1 Not at Risk

Dom. Rep. 1479 26 May 10 30 Jun 16 2 29 Nov 12 Pre MTR 3 4 6 Actual Problem

Dom. Rep. 1533 04 Sep 12 30 Sep 18 Pre MTR 3 3 5 Actual Problem

Ecuador 1297 25 Sep 07 30 Jun 14 6 21 Dec 12 17 Dec 10 Post MTR 1 4 4 2 Not at Risk

Ecuador 1354 04 Mar 11 30 Mar 17 Pre MTR 4 4 2 Not at Risk

Ecuador 1588 30 May 12 30 Jun 18 1 29 May 13 Pre MTR 3 4 1 Actual Problem

El Salvador 1321 24 Dec 08 31 Dec 16 9 31 May 13 Pre MTR 5 5 Not at Risk

El Salvador 1416 18 Dec 09 31 Dec 15 7 14 Jun 13 Pre MTR 4 4 Not at Risk

El Salvador 1568 01 Jun 12 30 Jun 17 Pre MTR 3 4 4 Actual Problem

Grenada 1569 30 Mar 11 31 Mar 17 4 04 Jul 13 Pre MTR 3 3 4 Actual Problem

Guatemala 1274 20 Oct 06 31 Dec 12 7 08 Dec 11 28 May 11 Post MTR 2 2 10 Actual Problem

Guatemala 1317 01 Dec 08 31 Dec 14 8 07 Dec 12 Post MTR 2 3 4 Actual Problem

Guatemala 1473 27 Jan 12 31 Mar 18 1 30 Nov 12 Pre MTR 4 4 2 Not at Risk

Guyana 1415 15 Jan 09 31 Mar 15 6 27 Jun 13 01 Apr 12 Post MTR 4 4 2 Not at Risk

Haiti 1171 20 Dec 02 31 Dec 14 10 23 Nov 12 20 May 11 Post MTR 1 4 5 1 Not at Risk

Haiti 1275 05 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 6 12 Apr 13 30 Mar 12 Post MTR 4 4 6 Potential Problem

Haiti 1532 24 Oct 12 31 Dec 17 Pre MTR 4 4 6 Potential Problem

Honduras 1407 17 Nov 08 31 Dec 15 8 22 Mar 13 22 Mar 13 Post MTR 4 4 2 Not at Risk

Honduras 1535 01 Feb 11 31 Mar 17 5 08 Mar 13 Pre MTR 4 4 1 Not at Risk

Honduras 1595 21 Feb 12 31 Mar 18 Pre MTR 4 4 5 Potential Problem

Mexico 1349 01 Sep 06 31 Dec 13 10 31 May 13 Post MTR 1 4 4 2 Not at Risk

Mexico 1412 23 Mar 11 31 Mar 16 3 31 May 13 Pre MTR 4 4 2 Not at Risk

Mexico 1597 29 Nov 12 31 Dec 18 Pre MTR 4 4 3 Not at Risk

Nicaragua 1120 20 Jun 01 30 Jun 13 22 23 May 13 09 Jun 09 Post MTR 5 5 Not at Risk

Nicaragua 1380 20 Aug 08 30 Sep 15 9 23 May 13 30 Sep 11 Post MTR 4 5 Not at Risk

Nicaragua 1505 11 Jan 12 31 Mar 17 3 23 May 13 Pre MTR 4 4 1 Not at Risk

Panama 1389 31 Mar 10 31 Mar 16 6 10 May 13 Pre MTR 3 4 7 Actual Problem

Paraguay 1333 30 Aug 07 30 Sep 13 9 28 Jun 13 22 Jul 11 Post MTR 5 6 1 Not at Risk

Peru 1240 22 Apr 05 31 Dec 13 8 15 Dec 12 10 Sep 09 Post MTR 1 4 5 Not at Risk

Peru 1352 23 Sep 09 30 Sep 14 4 06 Dec 11 05 Oct 12 Post MTR 4 4 1 Not at Risk

Venezuela 1252 20 Jul 06 30 Sep 13 6 02 Dec 12 14 Jul 09 Post MTR 1 4 4 Not at Risk

Venezuela 1404 19 Oct 10 31 Dec 17 2 08 Jun 12 Pre MTR 2 1 9 Actual Problem

44

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 41: Investment projects at risk: 2004 - 2013

Note: A-P: Actual Problem, P-P: Potential Problem, C: Completed, CN: Cancelled

CountryProject

IDProject name

Effectivenes

s date

Completion

date

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

2009-

2010

2010-

2011

2011-

2012

2012-

2013

Periods

at riskRemarks

Argentina 1279 PRODERPA Sep-07 Sep-13 A-P A-P A-P A-P

Argentina 1098 PRODERNOA Mar-03 Jun-11 A-P A-P A-P A-P C

Belize 1067 CARD Jun-99 Dec-05 A-P A-P C

Bolivia 1145 PROMARENA Aug-03 Sep-09 P-P A-P C

Bolivia 1490 Plan vida PEEP Aug-11 Sep-15 A-P Ugraded

Dominican Rep. 1479 PRORURAL OESTE May-10 Jun-16 A-P A-P 2

Dominican Rep. 1533 PRORURAL CENTRO Y ESTE Sep-12 Sep-18 A-P 1 New ; effective for less than 18 months

Ecuador 1297 CORREDOR CENTRAL Sep-07 Sep-13 A-P

Ecuador 1354 IBARRA-SAN LORENZO Mar-11 Mar-17 A-P Ugraded

Ecuador 1588 BUEN VIVIR May-12 Jun-18 A-P 1 New ; effective for less than 18 months

El Salvador 1416 PRODEMOR CENTRAL Dec-09 Dec-15 A-P A-P Ugraded

El Salvador 1568 AMANECER RURAL Jun-12 Jun-17 A-P 1 New ; effective for less than 18 months

Grenada 1181 RURAL ENTERPRISE PROJECT Oct-02 Jun-09 A-P A-P C

Grenada 1569 MAREP Mar-11 Mar-17 A-P 1 New ; effective for less than 3 years

Guatemala 1274 OCCIDENTE Oct-06 Dec-12 A-P A-P A-P A-P A-P A-P 6 Chronic; completed in December 2012

Guatemala 1317 ORIENTE Dec-08 Dec-14 A-P A-P A-P 3 Chronic

Guyana 1009 SUPPORT SERVICES PROJECT Mar-99 Jun-07 A-P A-P C

Haiti 1070 PICV II Sep-01 Sep-09 A-P A-P A-P A-P C

Haiti 1171 PAIP Dec-02 Dec-12 P-P A-P

Haiti 1275 PPI 2 Nov-08 Dec-15 A-P P-P 2

Haiti 1532 PPI 3 Oct-12 Dec-17 P-P 1 New ; effective for less than 18 months

Honduras 1128 FONADERS Jul-00 Jun-09 A-P A-P C

Honduras 1198 PRONADEL Oct-01 Jun-09 A-P A-P C

Honduras 1407 PROMECOM Nov-08 Jun-16 A-P A-P

Honduras 1595 EMPRENDE SUR Feb-11 Mar-17 P-P 1 New ; effective for less than 3 years

Mexico 1141 HULE Dec-01 Dec-09 A-P A-P A-P A-P C

Mexico 1268 MICROCUENCAS Jun-05 Jun-11 A-P A-P A-P A-P CN

Mexico 1349 PRODESNOS Sep-06 Sep-12 A-P

Nicaragua 1120 FAT Jun-01 Jun-13 A-P

Nicaragua 1380 PROCAVAL Aug-08 Sep-15 P-P

Panama 1049 TRIPLE C Oct-98 Jun-07 A-P

Panama 1199 NGÖBE-BUGLÉ Sep-03 Sep-11 A-P A-P A-P A-P A-P A-P A-P A-P C

Panama 1389 PARTICIPA Mar-10 Mar-16 P-P A-P 2

Paraguay 496 FDC Dec-96 Dec-04 A-P C

Venezuela 1186 BARLOVENTO Jul-03 Sep-09 A-P A-P C

Venezuela 1404 WARAO Oct-10 Dec-17 A-P A-P 2 Effective for less than three years

2004-2013 2009-2013

Total number of projects at risk 10 9 7 10 7 7 9 8 12 9 9

of which actual-problem projects 8 9 7 10 7 7 8 7 9 8 8

No. of ongoing projects (end of the review period) 36 28 26 26 29 33 33 36 42 32 35

% ongoing projects rated project-at-risk 28% 32% 27% 38% 24% 21% 27% 22% 29% 28% 25%

% ongoing projects rated actual-problem-project 22% 32% 27% 38% 24% 21% 24% 19% 21% 26% 22%

% ongoing projects rated potential-problem-project 6% 3% 3% 7% 2% 3%

average

45



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 42: Action plan for improving investment Portfolio Performance: June 2013

ARGENTINA

Generic country issues

Previous long-standing issues are now being solved, especially the new institutional setup is now proving its effectiveness in generating better implementation capacities and backstopping to the weaker provinces. Remaining issues: (i) Weak institutional capacities and budget constraints of many provinces. A strengthened UCAR and IFAD direct supervision are providing concrete support. Exchanges between weak and strong provinces could also be useful. (ii) Outreach: Assuming that the UCAR estimate of 11 million poor people is correct, IFAD-financed projects need to reach many more persons than currently. For this, efficiency must become a key criterion for sub-project activities. (iii) Sustainability: Government agrees that this is an important objective. Provincial implementation units need to focus more on supporting sub-projects (with TA) to attain sustainability.

Specific issues Projects affected Recommended follow-up Responsibility Target date

Short remaining implementation time requires fast revolution of funds and sufficient provision of TA.

PRODERPA

1. Fast revolution of funds: fortnightly justifications (UCAR) and rapid processing of WAs (IFAD).

1. IFAD and UCAR Dec-13

2. Sufficient provision of TA: Ensure that provincial units provide TA to sub-projects in technical areas, management and group dynamics.

2. UCAR Mar-14

Sub-projects risk not having sufficient time for implementation support

PRODEAR Ensure that all sub-project investments are completed 1 year before PRODEAR completion (31 December 2014)

UCAR Dec-14

Provinces risk not having sufficient time for programme implementation

PRODERI

Implement Provincial Adhesion Plan so that all funds (except a contingency of about ARS 30 million) are committed by 30 June 2014, thus leaving at least 3.5 years for the last provinces to implement

UCAR Jun-14

Good experience with local development platforms (CLERs and CODRA) may be lost at the end of PRODERPA.

All Lobby with UCAR to test viability of integrating local development platforms in PRODEAR and PRODERI.

IFAD Jun-14

BELIZE


The two previous IFAD operations suffered from staffing problems in terms of recruiting and retaining qualified and experienced people. Under the new direct supervision arrangements, IFAD is closely providing implementation support to the Programme Management Unit (PMU) staff. However, the BFRP implementation unit seems to lack the technical critical mass needed to impact on the business model of Credit Unions and orient them towards a new type of clientele – IFAD target groups. In particular, the PIU lacks a financial services expert to champion changes in financial products and product chain. This function was initially attributed to the Credit Unions’ League, but with a change in senior management the League is no longer the engine of these changes. The June 2013 supervision mission has identified a comprehensive list of managerial actions required and a road map to implement them.


Slow implementation BRFP The June 2013 has identified a number of measures and actions to be taken before year-end, to ensure a substantive acceleration in implementation towards the end of 2013 and in all 2014.

PMU Nov-13

Weak PMU BRFP Need to integrate PMU with a financial services specialist. Ministry of Economic Development and Project Manager

Nov-13

46

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

BOLIVIA


Most or IFAD funded projects in the country face implementation issues mainly due to institutional weaknesses of its leading agencies. Counterpart funding has been provided with delays and overall implementation continues to be adversely affected due to pressure by the central Government to reduce expenditures on operations. In the past years IFAD operations in Bolivia suffered from frequent changes of personnel in the Bolivian Ministry of Rural Development and Land and the Ministry of Planning, including the ministers themselves. However, country dialogue has significantly improved since mid-2010 after Ms. Viviana Caro Hinojosa and Ms. Nemesia Achacollo, Ministers of Planning and Rural Development and Land Issues, respectively, took office. In recent years IFAD has had very positive and open discussions with both ministers to tackle common implementation issues and define priorities for IFAD’s country programme in support of the agriculture and rural development sector of Bolivia. IFAD is also prioritizing frequent implementation support and supervision to the country programme, combined with training sessions for national counterparts when possible. Informal and formal follow up and policy dialogue increased significantly since IFAD has country presence in Bolivia in 2012. Since then, Government representatives are also participating directly to the country programme support activities.


Delays in achieving effectiveness and first disbursement

Plan-VIDA, ACCESOS Close policy dialogue with the Government; Proactive approach; management of parallel processes

IFAD CPM for Bolivia Continuous; ACCESOS ratification by June 2013

Slow initial implementation Plan-VIDA Strong early implementation support (tailor made initial induction, constant implementation support defined together with the Project, learning routes and training activities)

IFAD CPM for Bolivia in coordination with the Government

Continuous, focusing on the first year of the implementation

Weak M&E systems VALE, Plan-VIDA Include an experienced M&E expert in each supervision mission; organize a M&E training workshop

IFAD CPM in coordination with the Government and project directors

Continuous; M&E workshop in August 2013

47



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

BRAZIL


As mentioned above, since the COSOP approval in September 2008 six new projects were designed in Brazil. However, this accelerated rhythm in the country programme development was not reflected in the implementation of these new projects, due to long delays in the signature of the financing agreements corresponding to the first two projects designed under the current COSOP, what also delayed the start-up of these projects. The main causes of this situation were the complexity of procedures that the governments of the Brazilian states have to fulfill to obtain the authorization of the Federal Government to sign financing agreements with international organizations, and the fact that these projects correspond to some of the poorest states in the country, which are also among the weakest in terms of institutional capacity and, therefore, with insufficient institutional skills to deal with the mentioned complex procedures. In this context, the IFAD Brazil team had to devote time and energy to deepen the understanding of these procedures in order to be able to support the governments of the states towards obtaining authorization for signing the financing agreements. So, this process was not only a challenge for these states, but also implied a learning curve for IFAD. The work done by states’ governments and by IFAD Brazil team is finally showing fruits, what is reflected in the signature of three financing agreements and the entry into force of the corresponding three projects between October 2012 and June 2013. Additionally, it is expected that a fourth project will be signed and two more would be approved in the second semester of 2013, and that the latters would be signed and effective in early 2014. The simultaneous start-up of various projects represent important challenges to be faced, as mentioned in section F below.


Simultaneous start-up of various projects requires high attention from IFAD in order to ensure a good performance since the beginning

So far, projects in the states of Piauí, Paraíba and Ceará, although the expected entry into force of new projects in Sergipe, Bahia and DHC-II will increase pressure on this issue

Intensive implementation support and close follow-up to the projects regarding institutional, technical and financial matters

CPM, CPO, CPA and consultants team working in the country

Continuous, at least until end of 2014

M&E systems have to be set-up under a Country programme approach

Country programme Design M&E systems for each new project as part of a country programme M&E system

CPM, CPO, PMUs, specialized consultants

Continuous, at least until end of 2014

Integration and dialogue among projects Country programme Convert KM programme in an effective tool to integrate the projects among them and to take advantage of their experiences

CPM, CPO, KM Programme, PMUs

Continuous

Engagement with federal government Country programme The design of the DHCP-II provides an excellent opportunity to strengthen the dialogue with the Federal Government, what a steady building process

CPM, CPO 2013-2014

COLOMBIA


The on-going Oportunidades project is operating very satisfactorily, and it is obtaining its objectives and targets. The GOC has substantially increased the counterpart funds and the technical support to the PEU. However, the M&E system remains weak. The project will require an extension of 6 months in its implementation, due to the excess of counterpart funds (not envisaged during project design).


Project closure Oportunidades Rurales Dec-13 CPM

Implementation ACUA regional grant Supervision on January 2013 CPM Draft report should be completed on may

Start Up of the new loan TOP project Selection of the main team 8 persons and first disbursement

GOC and CPM May 30, 2013

48

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC


PRORURAL Oeste staff seems not to master well the market-driven approach proposed in project design. External technical assistance was key to support the formulation of the first set of Business Plans with farmers associations. Despite an intense follow-up from IFAD and national counterparts, the ratification of the PRORURAL Centro y Este project has ultimately required two years. Although effectiveness has been declared in September 2012, the newer project has yet to start. A mission has been fielded to identify and solve implementation bottlenecks common to both projects, so that once the main issue (i.e. availability of funds) is solved, the national programme can start recovering its delays in start-up.


Slow implementation progress of country programme (IFAD loans 780-DO and 811-DO and ESP-1-DO)

Country Programme (PRORURAL Oeste; PRORURAL Centro y Este)

Ensure political buy-in of IFAD strategy and portfolio at highest level of new government’s decision-makers

IFAD/GDR Mar-13

Same as above Country Programme Define and agree upon a road map to overcome implementation bottlenecks

IFAD/GDR Mar-13

Same as above Country Programme Identify specific implementation problems and viable solutions

IFAD/GDR

July 2013 (IS mission)

Sep-13

(MTR)

49



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

ECUADOR


IFAD funded projects have had systemic implementation issues due to continuous institutional instability and high turnover of responsible authorities that hamper smooth project execution. For example, in May 2009 IFAD was notified that the implementing agency for the ongoing Central Corridor project was being changed from the MAGAP to the Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion (MIES), causing the Legal Agreement to be amended and implementation to be severely affected. Similarly, the Ministry of Finance has just communicated to IFAD (two weeks after loan signing) that the implementing agency for the Ibarra-San Lorenzo project will be transferred from Plan Ecuador to MAGAP. Counterpart funding has also been provided with delays and overall implementation continues to be adversely affected due to continuous pressure by the central government to reduce expenditures on operations. IFAD’s main response to these risks remains frequent supervision and implementation support missions and continuous dialogue with finance ministry authorities and a broader range of government institutions. As with other projects in IFAD portfolio in the region, the Central Corridor project also shows weaknesses regarding their Logframe, design and implementation of M&E system, and elaboration of AWBP and monitoring of results and impacts, including RIMS. As part of direct supervision, IFAD is focusing on improving project M&E. For the new operation, standard monitoring and evaluation processes and indicators have been defined during programme design, and aligned with existing practices established by SENPLADES and local governments, but these would have to be expanded to assure follow-up, systematization and devolution of information in appropriate form to support social and institutional learning processes based on programme operations. In addition, the process of M&E adapted by the programme would be linked to the Proyecto de Control Ciudadano to be implemented in the framework of an agreement between SENPLADES and the National Council of Juntas Parroquiales of

Ecuador (CONAJUPARE). In turn, this system would supply information compatible with the national information system used by SENPLADES to monitor public sector investment.


Continuous institutional instability and high turnover of responsible authorities

All projects

Frequent supervision and implementation support missions and continuous dialogue with finance ministry authorities and a broader range of government institutions. In the second half of 2011 and 2012, adequate budget allocation and counterpart financing were secured for all ongoing IFAD projects

Ministry of Finance, MIES, MAGAP, SENPLADES

Continuous

Counterpart funding has been provided with delays and adequate allocation in national budget has been uneven

Timely submission of financial audits

Central Corridor Development Project, Programa del Buen Vivir Rural (encompassing the two projects implemented jointly by MAGAP), and two country grants (1186-EC completed in 6/2011, and TAG-1015-INCCA, completed in 12/2010)

Agreement with government on a timetable of critical actions to complete financial audits

Ministry of Finance, MAGAP, MIES/IPES, Plan Ecuador Technical Secretariat

No later than 30/06/2013

50

50

50

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

EL SALVADOR


IFAD has approved nine loans/ projects to El Salvador, of which: six projects are closed; two are ongoing; and one has yet to fulfil its effectiveness conditions, i.e., the loan for the Rural Territorial Competitiveness Programme (Amanecer Rural) (Loan 828-SV), approved in December 2010. All investment programmes in the country have faced launching difficulties, as a result of loan approval and ratification delays by Congress. The shared risk of limited and delayed counterpart funding is being minimised in the recent programmes by constraining government financing to duties and taxes. The political interference in the allocation of programme resources to municipalities and communities is being contained through strengthening participatory planning capabilities of municipalities, enhancing the sustainability of social and economic infrastructure, at the same time that effective targeting processes and social audit are promoted during implementation. During this first semester 2013, CPM is dialoguing with MAG authorities for designate a financial management unit (like UNDP for the others two ongoing projects). Minister Ochoa has been revising UNDP’s performance and exploring other options before making a proposal, he mentioned the option of UNOPS during the meeting with President Nwanze.


Project administrator Amanecer Rural Designate a financial management unit for Amanecer Rural Project

MAG/Rural Development Director and Country Programme Manager

Jun-13

Policy Dialogue Prodemoro y Prodemor Central Promote the dialogue between MAG y small producer’s networks on public policy pro-rural population.

Country Programme Manager Jun-13

Private Sector Partnership Prodemoro y Prodemor Central

Foment the engagement of the private sector in business initiatives with focus on sustainable development pro-rural small farmers.

Country Programme Manager 41426

GRENADA


Slow implementation progress has been the main issues in the initial phase of MAREP. The previous PM had a controversial management style, which led to the resignation of various valuable project staff. In March 2013, the new government has decided – with IFAD and CDB’s no objection – not to renew the PM’s contract; consequently, other key staff have left the PMU. It is urgent that a new PM and key technical staff are recruited and the existing one confirmed in their current positions. The new GOG has agreed to have the selection processes on-going by July and completed by end of August 2013. An Action Plan has also been agreed upon in detail, and is part of the most recent supervision report (June-July 2013).


Slow implementation MAREP Recruitment of new PM and PMU staff Ministry of Finance July-Aug 2013

Counterpart funding MAREP Close follow up CPM continuous

51

51

51

51

51



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

GUATEMALA


A series of Congress Decrees published in July/August 2012 affected the legal status of 2 of IFAD’s (the Western and Eastern Region ones), and resulted in uncertainty regarding their executing agency (MAGA or FONAPAZ), putting them on a standstill since. On January 17th, 2013, the Government published a legal Agreement to close down FONAPAZ (within a year), which has been an executing agency for part of IFAD’s portfolio in the country, including a recent ongoing project for the country’s Northern Region, which has been put on hold as well. The Western Region project already is on its closing period towards June 30th. The government requested a 6 month extension to close the project, arguing that its transfer from MAGA to FONAPAZ, derived from the mid-2012 events, has caused delays. IFAD did not grant the extension, but allowed for 6 additional weeks, until August 15th, 2013, for the final closing reports to be submitted without imposing penalties. In May 2013, IFAD issued a warning letter to Guatemala in regards to the risks of the approaching deadlines for the above mentioned timely closure of the Western Region Project, as well as for the signing of the ProQuiche loan (see below). Furthermore, it raised the urgency to reactivate the Eastern Region and the Northern Region projects under MAGA as their Executing Agency. On the letter, IFAD made explicit the potential negative consequences of a delay in the closing of the Western Region project: i.e. suspension of the portfolio and further cancellation if corrective measures are not undertaken on time. Nevertheless, to date, IFAD’s portfolio in Guatemala still faces an impasse and high risk. IFAD has expressed its preference to have the portfolio under MAGA, as its sector counterpart for policy dialogue, though an important effort for institutional strengthening should be made, especially because MAGA has a poor execution history. In this sense, IFAD has offered a country grant for MAGA’s institutional and operational strengthening (US$500,000), but conditioned to the reactivation and positioning of the portfolio under MAGA.


Complete the closing process Western Programme Continued monitoring by CPM and CFS FONAPAZ Aug-13

PRODENORTE

GUYANA


READ is the only on-going project in Guyana. The project is doing quite well on procurement, and is about to accelerate in the main implementation areas. Project management, specifically in relation to the role of ASDU manager, is currently being addressed by the government and is expected to be solved before year-end. After over a year of vacancy, the PM position has been filled. The new manager is known to MOA and the PMU, being the former community development specialist. In spite of her young age, the PM appears to be making her way to revamp project implementation, with the full support of the government (both MOF and MOA).


Project administration READ To clarify the role of ASDU MOA/MOF Sep-13

Slow implementation READ A number of actions have been agreed upon in the June SPN mission and are currently being implemented by the PMU

MOA July-Oct 2013

52

52

52

52

52

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

HAITI


Limited integration and cross learning within IFAD country program

Financial flows have improved from IFAD to Special Accounts, and from Special Account to project accounts. Close monitoring is critical to build momentum of the improvements that have been recorded since the change of management in the MARNDR.

Major issues in financial management in the on-going projects;

Timely start of implementation for PPI-III has been hindered by difficulty in fulfilling on remaining condition prior to first disbursement. The positive aspect has been the demonstrated political will by MARNDR leadership to resolve the situation

Need for continued capacity building among projects’ staff and community organizations in key areas such as gender, participatory approaches, M&E and procurement.


1. Poor Financial management PPI-2 and PAIP

1-On-the job training in financial management skills;

PMUs/Executing agencies; Started July 2013 and will be continuous

2-Enhanced implementation support to PMUs;

Country office;

Country office

CFS

3. Poor quality of monitoring and evaluation of projects

PPI-2

1-As above. PMU/MARNDR;

Started July 2013 and will be continuous 2-With the recruitment of the new M&E

officer, provide implementation support. Country office;

4. Weak Gender mainstreaming PPI-2 In-depth review of gender in project implementation and recommendations for improvement

IFAD Continuous

supervision missions

5. Poor quality of services from services providers

PPI-2 and PAIP More rigorous selection process of service providers; and use of providers with a proven record on quality delivery

PMUs Started in June and continuous

50

50

50

50

53



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

HONDURAS


The common implementation issues and problems of previous project operations in Honduras related to: (i) delayed allocation of counterpart funding,(ii) slow project execution and (iii) clarification of non eligible expenditures in projects; all are taken into account in the design of new investment programmes, like in the case of the Proyecto de Competitividad y Desarollo Rural Sostenible del CorredorFronterizo Sur Occidental (PRO-LENCA). PROMECOM has overcome its standstill phase and EMPRENDESUR is entering its consolidation phase. Horizontes del Norte is evidencing a recuperation of the initial delays in the first withdrawals. The subregional team has analysed the portfolio performance, and considers it to be adequate and improving its execution rate.


Formalization of the GEF agreement Horizontes del Norte Follow up with LEG and the country counterparts

Country Programme Manager and Project Director

Oct-13

Finalization of Implementation Strategy Horizontes del Norte PMU and UNDP Aug-13

Implementation of MTR recommendations PROMECOM Continuous monitoring and implementation support as needed.

PMU, CPM, UNDP, SAG Feb-14

Revision and redesign of the Financial and Accounting System

EMPRENDESUR, PROMECOM, Horizontes del NOrte

Continuous monitoring PMUs and UNDP Dec-13

Loan negotiation and EB approval by LOT PROLENCA Country Programme Manager Aug-13

MEXICO


The projects launching and implementation has normally been delayed due to institutional matters that are eventually overcome. Implementation delays have been also due in part to the participatory nature of the projects and their focus on organizational development and the promotion of self-management processes of the interest groups. Moreover, the Mixteca - Mazahua project became effective in 2012, and it is expected to be implemented until 2014 due to the failure to allocate the necessary fiscal resources for 2013.


Impact evaluation (RIMS) PRODESNOS Review of the ToR CPM Jun-13

Workshop (implementation support) PRODESNOS and DECOFOS Preparation of workshop topics: intervention model and monitoring and evaluation system

CPM and Mexico´s team June – July 2013

Review of RIMS indicators and associated Log-frame indicators, showing cumulative progress achieved to end-2012, i.e., products, results, impacts

PRODESNOS and DECOFOS Review situation of expected documents during next implementation support mission

CPM and CONAFOR’s management team

Aug-13

Start-up workshop Mixteca - Mazahua Preparation of workshop topics CPM and Mexico´s team 2nd

half of 2013

RB-COSOP (2013-2018) IFAD´s country programme

Design and approval of the new RB-COSOP. In addition, the Fund will assess new and innovative lending opportunities with the country

CPM Apr-14

54

54

54

54

54

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

NICARAGUA


Delays in the delivery of audit reports and other clauses of the financing agreements. Weak M&E system Weak financial and procurement management system of both NICARIBE and PROCAVAL projects.


Privilege business plans with consolidated organizations and investments in their core business. PROCAVAL Supplementary Fund 863-

NI/DSF 8097-NI

Support PCU in learning and development of business plans

MEFCCA/PCU

Jul-13

Improve institutional capacity in procurement Organize a workshop on procurement with MEFCCA staff

CPM, MEFCCA

Continue the process of empowerment by territorial governments

NICARIBE 830 –NI/ DSF 8071-NI

Selection process and induction of staff has been completed successfully

MEFCCA/PCU

Aug-13 Improve institutional capacity in procurement

Organize a workshop on procurement with MEFCCA staff

CPM, MEFCCA

The project closing process has been initiated, including the preparation of PCR

FAT 529 Finalize impact studies, learning route and closing and preparation of PCR

PCU Staff and CPM Jul-13

PANAMA

Historically, the projects have suffered from delay effectiveness/ disbursements and weak political support. Key implementation issues are addressed by direct supervision and continued technical support for the PARTICIPA project. One issue that persisted along 2012 and the first half of 2013 was the pending reimbursement by Panama to IFAD for the remaining balance of the special account of the previous project Ngöbe-Buglé. The CPM, in close coordination with CFS, followed up on this matter on a weekly basis and despite the delays, the authorities managed to identify the funds and make an initial transfer for most of the balance. Therefore, IFAD didn’t have to impose disbursement suspension measures to the country. The minor remaining due balance is in the process of being reimbursed directly by the Ministry of Finance (MEF) to IFAD.


Include gender perspective in AWP&B 2013 PARTICIPA AWP&B Review Project’s Manager Aug-13

Settlement of special account balance Ngöbe-Bublé Continued follow up by CPM with CFS Ministry of Finance Sep-13

Hiring a Specialist in Environment and Natural Resources – Design strategy for GEF management with ANAM

PARTICIPA MTR Project’s Manager Second half 2013

Implementation of new accounting system (recently acquired)

PARTICIPA MTR Project’s Manager Second half 2013

COSOP’s Final Review Country Programme Manager Dec-13

55



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

PARAGUAY


As the last 20 months’ political turmoil has shown, fragile institutional stability and human resources capacities in the public agricultural sector constitute a continuous threat to all progress made in Paraguay. For this reason, IFAD strategy in the country maintains the economic and social empowerment of farmers’ organizations at the centre of the Fund’s modus operandi in the country. While administrative and approval processes in Paraguay persist as very bureaucratic, there has been considerable progress in this area, including the reduction of a number of steps in the administrative processes leading to the approval of any financial commitment by the PPR.


Political change currently delaying the start of PPI. Mostly the new project PPI, as the on-going PPR is in the last phase of implementation.

Intensify contacts with transition group to facilitate fiscal space for PPI, and political support for rural development in general

CPM with the support of IFAD liaison and SRT colleagues.

Aug-13

Lessons learned from PPR may be poorly captured

PPR, with implications for PPI and next project

Design small grant for CADEP CPM with the support of IFAD liaison Aug-13

PERU


Although the new Loan Agreement is more flexible to allow start-up of execution immediately after signature, the Borrower is requesting the Lead Agency to fulfil specific requirements before asking for the first disbursement. Thus, project implementation can be significantly delayed.


Mid Term Review Sierra Norte Recommendations are under implementation CPM Next supervision august 2013

Additional counterpart funds for Sierra Norte Sierra Norte MEF should approve additional counterpart funds and increase the IFAD funds use on 2013

CPM Jul-13

Effectiveness and fiscal space DELOSI project No fiscal space was assigned to this new project

GOP/ AGRORURAL Jun-13

Country grant for joint water management All To be reviewed with the GOP and to guarantee availability of IFAD funds

GOP and CPM Aug-13

IFAD President visiting Peru Sierra Sur 2 field visit To prepare the visit GOP, IFAD office in Lima July/August 2013

Approval of GEF Grant DELOSI GEF would approve the project soon CPM Jun-13

56

56

56

56

56

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

VENEZUELA


A systemic issue causing under-utilization of IFAD loans is Government policy in increasing national counterpart funds and contributions to IFAD projects using extra-budgetary sources generated by the oil-surplus revenue. Another systemic issue affecting project implementation performance is frequent changes in ministerial authorities that cause instability in project teams. Other weaknesses relate to delays in the selection of Audit firms and divergent government orientations on the contracting of services. IFAD projects in Venezuela have also shown systemic weaknesses regarding Logframes, design and implementation of M&E systems, and elaboration of AWBP and monitoring of results and impacts (including RIMS) which is poor overall. This is surprising given the multiple workshops and training received by the projects on the development of M&E methodologies and tools, systematization of experiences, and frequent exchanges with other IFAD projects organized with support of PREVAIL and FIDAMERICA. Pro-Warao project The Orinoco Delta Warao Support Programme, implemented by the National Directorate of Indigenous Health, was negotiated in 05/2009. Loan signing was completed in January 2010. Programme effectiveness was obtained in 10/2010 and the first disbursement made in 12/2010. However, high turnover of responsible authorities and consequent changes in the project team continue to hamper smooth project execution. The Director of the ProWarao and most members of the programme team were all replaced by the Dirección de Salud Indígena, the implementing agency, causing implementation to be severely affected. Almost three years after its effectiveness, the project has not yet started (5% disbursement) and has been unable to present audit reports for 2010/2011 and 2012, a situation which led to the suspension of the loan in January 2013. Given the situation, it was proposed to cancel this loan, and instead seek an alternative, designing a new, smaller project to be implemented under more flexible arrangements by an NGO or Foundation. This new project could be cofinanced, through a grant, by IFAD, provided that the Government agrees to this proposal. The cancellation would take place in August/September 2013, once received the confirmation from the Gov.


Training and support to be provided by IFAD team

IFAD team As required

Early preparation of documentation Project teams Continuous

Suspension of loan Pro-Warao Cancelation of loan Ministries of Planning and Finance, Ministry of Health

Aug-13

50

50

50

50

57



Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

____

Latin

Am

eric

a a

nd

the

Ca

ribb

ean

Div

isio

n

An

nu

al P

ortfo

lio P

erfo

rma

nce

Re

po

rt 201

2 - 2

013

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

___

___

___

__

__

__

___

___

___

_

Table 43: Action plan for improving grant portfolio performance: June 2013

Grant issues Grants affected Recommended follow-up Responsibility Target date

TAG-1015-INCCA Regular monitoring w ith grant recipients

TAG-1129-DO Collaboration w ith CFS

TAG-1186-EC

TAG-1144-WINFA

Keep all grant recipients informed of IFAD financial

management requirements

Collaboration w ith CFS during audit processes

Internal discussion w ith CPMs and key implementing

partners to identify objectives and thematic areas

Elaboration and internal validation of DSWP

Identify strategic areas of know ledge to be mainstreamed

Develop and pilot a set of operational tools to mainstream

grants results

Define targets and activities to strengthen linkages of grant

portfolio w ith country programmes and investment projects

Develop a grant communication strategy

Regional Economist under

LAC Director's guidance, w ith

inputs from CPM

Throughout 2013-2014

Grants w ith overdue closing date Grant Manager End-2013

Financial reporting All grants Grant Manager Start immediately; continuing

Know ledge management: mainstreaming

of grants results

All

DSWP 2014-2016: prioritization of

Divisional objectives as w ell as thematic

areas

Regional grants Regional Economist under

LAC Director's guidance, w ith

inputs from CPM

Q IV 2013

58

Documents

Annual Portfolio Performance Report 2012 - 2013